Skip to main content

Full text of "History of the Peloponnesian War"

See other formats 


Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 


public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individual 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


and we request that you use these files for 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 
ai[http: //books . google. com/| 


THUCYDIDES 


JOWETT 


VOL. II. a 


Dondon 


HENRY FROWDE 


OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE 


7 PATERNOSTER ROW 


THUCYDIDES 


TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH 


WITH INTRODUCTION, MARGINAL ANALYSTS, 


NOTES AND INDICES 


BY 


B. JOWETT, M.A. 


MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE 
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN 


IN TWO VOLUMES 


VOL. II, CONTAINING THE NOTES 


TO WHICH ARE ADDED AN ESSAY ON CONTEMPORARY INSCRIPTIONS 
AND OTHER BRIEF DISSERTATIONS 


Orford 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 


1881 


[ All rights reserved ἢ 


OF SS 355 3 


Harvard Oollege Library 
From the Es‘ate of 
PROF. H. W. GURNBY 
1 July, 1902 


(τ 


L “4 


v2 
9 


ν 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


ON INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AGE OF THUCYDIDES . . vil 
NOTE ON THE GEOGRAPHY OF THUCYDIDES . . . Ixxix 
NOTE ON AIKAI ADO SYMBOAQN AND SYMBOAAIAI Ιχχχν 
NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THUCYDIDES . . . . 1-535 
NOTE ON THE BODLEIAN MSS. OF THUCYDIDES . . 535 
INDEX TO NOTES: ENGLISH. . . . . . 537 

» ” GREEK . . . . . . . | 546 


CORRIGENDA . . . . . . . . . 55! 


THE GREATNESS OF THUCYDIDES. 


‘What are they all (the Roman Historians) to the great Athenian ? 
‘I do assure you that there is no prose composition in the world, not 
‘even the De Corona, which I place so high as the seventh book of 
‘Thucydides. It is the e Jlus ultra of human art. I was delighted 
‘to find in Gray’s letters the other day this query to Wharton: “The 
‘retreat from Syracuse—Is it or is it not the finest thing you ever 
‘read in your life?” ’—Lzfe of Lord Macaulay, vol. 1. p. 449. 


‘Most people read all the Greek that they ever read before they 
‘are five and twenty... Accordingly, almost all their ideas of Greek 
‘literature are ideas formed while they were still very young. A young 
‘man, whatever his genius may be, is no judge of such a writer as 
‘Thucydides. I had no high opinion of him ten years ago. I have 
‘now been reading him with a mind accustomed to historical re- 
‘searches, and to political affairs; and I am astonished at my own 
‘former blindness, and at his greatness.’ Vol. i. p. 440. 


APPENDIX, p. 475.—‘ This day I finished Thucydides, after reading 
‘him with inexpressible interest and admiration. He is the greatest 
‘historian that ever lived. Feb. 27, 1835.’ 

41 am still of the same mind. May 30, 1836.’ 


‘While I was reading the Annals I was reading Thucydides... 
‘What made the Annals appear cold and poor to me was the intense 
‘interest which Thucydides inspired. Indeed, what colouring is there 
‘which would not look tame when placed side by side with the mag- 
‘nificent light, and the terrible shade, of Thucydides? Tacitus was 
‘a great man, but he was not up to the Sicilian expedition.’ Vol. i. 


p. 458. 


ON INSCRIPTIONS 


OF THE 


AGE OF THUCYDIDES. 


SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 


NATURE Of the study, ix ; where inscriptions are found, x ; process 
of restoring, deciphering, fixing the date, xi ; Messenians of Naupactus, 
xi; Alcibiades, Mitylené, xii, cp. lxxxviii ; ancient forms of letters and 
words, xii; illustrations of Herodotus, Aristophanes, Plutarch, etc., xiv; 
mention of Sophocles, xvi; inscriptions compared with MSS., xvi; 
restoration of them assisted by uniformity of writing and contents, xvii; 
danger of conjectural explanations, which are sometimes overthrown 
by later discoveries, xix, cp. xxxii, xlviii; inscriptions illustrate an- 
tiquities more than history, xxi ; accounts of the ‘ Board of Admiralty,’ 
and of the Erechtheum, xxii; inscriptions chiefly belong to later 
times, xxii; use of them by the ancients, xxii; interest of them as 
relics of the past, xxilt; the oldest are comparatively recent, xxiv ; 
literary interest, xxvi; forgery, xxvii. 

Inscriptions illustrating Thucydides: The τάξις φόρον and quota 
lists, xxix; comparison of Thucydides and the quota lists, xxxiii; 
doubling of the tribute in 425 (ἢ), xxxvili; arrears recorded in the 
quota lists (?), xliit; Melos and Thera, xlvi; famine of 449 (?), xlvii; 
geographical division of the tributaries, xlvii ; revolt of Potidaea, etc., 
xlviil ; how was the tribute fixed ? xlvili. 

Inventories of sacred treasure, xlix ; repayment of debts to Athené 
and the other deities, liii; Kirchhoff’s attempt to estimate the ex- 
penditure of Athens in 431-428 by a comparison of Thuc. ii. 13, 
iii. 17, 19, lvii ; ordinary scale of expenditure, lix ; interest on expend- 
iture from sacred treasure in 433-423, Ixi; was there also a secular 


ν INSCRIPTIONS. 


treasure? lxii; Demosthenes and Nicias, lxiv, cp. Ixvi; record of ex- 
penditure under another form, lxiv ; revolt of Samos, lxv; expedition 
to Corcyra and discrepancy with Thucydides, Ixvi; expeditions to 
Melos and Sicily, Ixvi, cp. xx; reference to the reserve fund and the 
400 (2), xviii ; exhaustion of the treasury in 410, lxix ; the Propylaea, 
Delos, mutilation of the Hermae, Ixix. 

Decrees of the senate and people, lxix; Erythrae, Colophon, 
Chalcis, Miletus, Hestiaea, Rhegium, Leontini, Methoné, Perdiccas, 
Argos, Hyperbolus, Bottiaea, Samos, Phrynichus, Halieis, the ‘ Pelas- 
gian ground,’ intercalary month, Ixix-lxxv ; votive and sepulchral 
inscriptions, lxxv, cp. xvi, xxiv; fragments from the wall of The- 
mistocles, Ixxvi; dangerous tendency to conjecture in the study of 
inscriptions, Ixxvii ; the true value of them, xxviii. 


ON INSCRIPTIONS 
OF THE 


AGE OF THUCYDIDES. 


THE study of ancient Greek inscriptions, to which so 
great an impulse has been given during the last sixty years 
by scholars, such as Boeckh, Kirchhoff, and Kohler in 
Germany, Lebas and Waddington in France, Mr. Charles 
Newton in England, as well as by Greek archzologists 
such as Rangabé, throws a real but not a considerable 
light upon the history of Greece. Many thousands of 
them have been already collected; and the number may 
be indefinitely increased by the zeal and industry of the 
present generation. None hitherto found are older than 
the seventh century before Christ, some of the oldest 
being written βουστροφηδόν (i.e. returning at the end of 
the line like the ox in the furrow); in the sixth century 
and down to the Persian war they are rare; in the latter 
half of the fifth century they become more numerous, and 
there are many which have a direct connexion with the 
history of Thucydides. Several of these are noticed under 
the passages to which they belong; all of them will be 
brought together in this essay. 

The study of inscriptions is not separable from the 
general study of the Ancient World. In so far as it illus- 
trates the use of letters or words, or the growth of the 
dialects, or the history of prose writing, it may be in- 
cluded under Philology. In so far as it contributes to 
our knowledge of the religion, commerce, laws, political 
institutions, or of the private life and manners of the 
ancients, it may be placed under the head of Antiquities. 
It may also be classed with History, inasmuch as historical 

VOL. Il. b 


Χ THUCYDIDES. 


facts are recorded in inscriptions and the accounts of 
historians are confirmed by them. To elevate such an 
accidental and multifarious kind of knowledge into a 
science of ‘Epigraphy’ is misleading. Its method, if it 
have any single method, is inductive, that is to say, it 
proceeds from the examination of facts, a general know- 
ledge of history and of inscriptions being brought to bear 
on the analysis of some particular one. It has frequent 
recourse to hypotheses, of which many remain and will 
for ever remain unverified. The arrangement of inscrip- 
tions adopted by Boeckh according to the countries in 
which they are found, or the states to which they belong, 
is commonly the most convenient; they may be further 
divided according to date, or when the date cannot be 
ascertained, according to the subjects of them. The few 
archaic inscriptions which are extant naturally form a class 
by themselves |. 

The older Attic inscriptions are generally imperfect. 
Of many only a few words or lines, often not more than 
a word or two, survive. The slabs of marble on which 
they are engraven are commonly broken and scattered ; 
they are found in the beds of rivers, on the sites of 
temples, in the neighbourhood of the Erechtheum, on the 
steps of the Parthenon, at the entrance of the Propylza, 
in the Portico of Hadrian, on the banks of the Ilissus, 
built into the walls of a ruined church or the staircase 
of a monastery, here and there inserted in the pavement 
of a courtyard or the floor of a cottage, or forming the 
table of a Christian altar. Hardly any remain in their 
original position. From most of them there is a difficulty 
in extracting a continuous meaning ; the result partakes of 


1 Cp. Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Greecarum, praef. p. xii ff. To this work, 
a noble monument of learning and critical sagacity; to the admirable Corpus 
Inscriptionum Atticarum (vol. i) of Kirchhoff, quoted in this essay as C.J.A., 
and his treatises on the Athenian treasury; to Kohler’s separate work on 
the Tribute Lists, as well as to the interesting essays of Mr. Charles Newton, 
and to the beautiful and accurate collection of ancient Greek inscriptions in 
the British Museum by Messrs. Newton and Hicks, the author would express 
his great obligations. 


INSCRIPTIONS. x1 


the nature of the materials. But considering the chances 
of destruction to which they have been exposed we may 
wonder that so much has been preserved, and that so 
many institutions and historical events receive illustration 
from them. 

The process of deciphering Greek inscriptions may be 
roughly described as follows, First, the fragments must 
be copied and fitted into each other, allowance being made 
for missing portions: either they may belong to a single 
flat surface, or they may be the sides of a solid block. 
In some instances mistakes have occurred, and a further 
investigation or a fresh discovery has shown that pieces 
which at first appeared to belong to the same inscription 
were really parts of different ones; or, if belonging to the 
same, that they had been arranged in a wrong order: 
e.g. C. I. A. 38 and Supp. 38 a: C. I. A. 241-254: Supp. 
page 26. In the attempt to restore words the measure of 
space is one of our chief guides. When a surface was written 
all over, the number of letters in a particular line may be 
exactly known, though not a vestige of them remains. 
But whether the part of a marble slab or block which 
has been defaced or broken off contained writing or not 
may be uncertain. An indicator of time is the form of the 
letters, and this may sometimes vary in the same inscrip- 
tion (as in C.I.A. 40). The Greek alphabet during the 
Peloponnesian war was in a process of transition, and the 
apparent variety or inconsistency in the use of some one 
or more letters may limit the date of an inscription to the 
period of the transition. Thus in C.I.A. Supp. 22 g, of 
which only three or four words are preserved, 

DKLESHI.... 

ΜΕΣΣ .... PP (?) 
we are able from the double form of the letter Σ ($ =) 
and from the syllable ΜΕΣ to infer with tolerable cer- 
tainty that the text falls in the period of transition from 
one form of the letter to the other, about 456-445, and 
relates to the establishment of the Messenians at Nau- 
pactus about 455 B.C. (Thuc. i. 103 init.). But the period 

b 2 


ΧΙ THUCYDIDES. 


of transition may likewise introduce a new element of un- 
certainty in determining the value of the letters; and the 
matter of inscriptions may in a few instances be older than 
the date at which they were engraven, e.g. C. I. A. 93. 
The country in which an inscription is found or the city 
to which it refers is also a criterion not to be neglected. 
The text itself may help to supply its own lacunae. A 
word, a line, several lines may be wanting, but different 
syllables of the imperfect word, or parts of the line, may 
be collected from another place in the same inscription. 
For example, the letters AX! in C.I. A. τὸ are the 
vestiges of =YMMAXIA, as may be easily inferred from 
the rest of the inscription; from the syllables KOLO¢O 
and ONION in different parts of C.I.A. 13 the whole 
word KOAO@N NINN may be legitimately extracted; in 
C. I. A. Supp. 61 ἃ (a treaty between the Selymbrians 
and Athenians), from klo ... 2%, aided by a comparison of 
Xenophon, Hellenica, i. 3. 10, we can elicit without difh- 
culty the name AAKIBIAAHZ. In C.I.A. Supp. 96, 
the word MYTILENAION and the partially effaced kL™- 
[POY]XOI= clearly show that the inscription relates to 
the events recorded in Thucydides, iii. 50. Although the 
first impression excited in the mind by the appearance of 
the half-effaced lines is one of bewilderment and unfami- 
liarity, out of the chaos order soon begins to arise. The 
experienced eye detects in the shape of the letters, in the 
use of A A for A, of αὶ for E, of ® for ©, of P for P, 
of $ for Σ, of ὦ for Φ, of + for X, of H for the aspirate, 
of E for El and H, of O for M and OY, of A for [, of L for A, 
of X$ for =, of $$ for Y, and similar variations, the steps by 
which the earlier Attic characters were modified, the Ionic 
alphabet being regularly adopted in the Archonship of Eu- 
clides, B.C. 403. ‘There are some other particulars in which 
the earlier Attic usage differs from the later. In the older 
inscriptions, for EAMI£ is written HELTI&, for AMPEA 
AOPEIA, for HEKAZ TO EKAZ TOS, for -EXONN (3 p. 
imp. pass.) -OZOON (e.g. 27 a Supp.): there are assimila- 
tions of N and T, as in EMMOLEI, TOLLOTIZ TON, ΕΣ- 


INSCRIPTIONS. ΧΙΙ 


TELE!, EXZANIAI, EXPYLEZ, MEAXPYZA, EAMME, 
and also refusals to assimilate, as in XZYNMAXOI, OLYN- 
ΠΙΟΣ, ZTPONB[IXO=Z], (some appearing later); redupli-_ 
cation of £, as in ΑΡΙΣ Σ ΤΑ ; Ionic datives plural in AZI, 
ceasing to occur in inscriptions during the goth Olympiad, 
B.C. 420-417; dativesin HIZIN, HEIN, AIZIN, and OIZIN; 
other forms, such as OLEIION, the comparative of OAI- 
[ON, which are found in inscriptions though not occurring 
elsewhere in Attic ;—all these may be used as notes of 
time. We find however that some of the modern letters 
appear among the older ones before the Archonship of 
Euclides ; it is probable that the Ionic alphabet was in 
literary use when it was not yet employed in public docu- 
ments. There was a gradual change from slanting to up- 
right forms; and it is interesting to trace the manner in 
which some refractory straggling letters, such as M and N, 
were coerced into regularity. In the interval between the 
Persian and Peloponnesian wars the archaic style dis- 
appears, and the hand of the engraver works with more 
clearness and precision. 

Having determined the letters and from them formed a 
conjecture of the date of the inscription, and assisted by a 
knowledge of the place in which it is found, the decipherer 
will now proceed to compare the words or syllables which 
are legible. (The reader must be reminded that in this 
short outline we are speaking of early imperfect inscrip- 
tions, and chiefly of those contemporary with Thucydides.) 
A very few scattered words are sufficient to tell the gene- 
ral subject: it may be a treaty of peace or alliance, the 
dedication of an offering, a grant of privileges to a state 
or an individual, an epitaph, an inventory of treasure, a 
boundary line, the cost of a public edifice, a catalogue of 
confiscated goods, a direction for a festival or a sacrifice 
or the building of a temple, a prohibition, a punishment ; 
any historical event, any incident of private life, may turn 
up in an inscription. We are sometimes able to trace a co- 
incidence of names occurring in Thucydides or Xenophon 
which may serve as a clue. But we can seldom proceed 


XIV THUCYDIDES. 


much further. The details which we seek to extract from 
a fragment are necessarily incoherent, a food for guesses. 
A few inscriptions only preserve a clear and entire mean- 
ing, or may receive it from a comparison of contemporary 
history. We had better begin by moderating our expecta- 
tions, if we would avoid disappointment. In enquiries of 
this kind the result is seldom very great, nor always very 
certain. 

The task of reading ancient Greek inscriptions may be 
compared to the amusement of putting together a dis- 
sected puzzle, or of making out an acrostic. The ingenuity 
which is required in both cases is of the same kind. When 
all the pieces fit and all the letters fall into their places, 
then the solution of the puzzle has been found. And 
although many of the pieces have been lost and many of 
the words or letters are no longer legible, and fragments of 
different inscriptions are mixed up together, still order and 
consistency and exhaustiveness in whatever degree they 
can be attained are the tests of truth. Of course, as in a 
cipher, the possibility of arriving at a successful result de- 
pends on the definiteness of the problem and the possi- 
bility of obtaining an answer to it from a comparison of 
other parts of the document or of similar documents. 

The broken form in which the older Greek inscriptions 
have been preserved to us, though impairing, is far from 
destroying their value. But before much use can be made 
of them they must be illustrated by the literary remains 
of antiquity. Many coincidences, slight as well as impor- 
tant, soon begin to appear in them which realize ancient 
history to us. The juxtaposition of two names, the men- ° 
tion of an office, of a ceremony, of a reward conferred on 
an individual or on a tributary state, send us to the pages 
of the historian, and they may often supply a test of the 
accuracy or knowledge of a great writer or of a scholiast. 
It may be truly said that the inscriptions of the fifth cen- 
tury before Christ, though not always agreeing with his 
narrative (see C.I.A. 37,179), tend upon the whole to 
confirm the authority of Thucydides. A few letters still 


INSCRIPTIONS. XV 


remain of an inscription which Herodotus records to have 
been engraved on the memorial (a τέθριππος χάλκεος) erected 
by the Athenians in honour of the victory which they gained 
over the Boeotians and Chalcidians soon after the expulsion 
of the Pisistratidae (Herod. v. 77; C. I. A. 334)!. Such 
testimony is still more needed for the verification of later 
historians. An inscription (C. I. A.:273, cp. 22 @ Supp.) cor- 
rects a name found in Diodorus, xii. 58, and also in Athe- 
naeus, v. p. 218. By these writers the archon of the year 
Ol. 88. 3 (B.C. 426) is called Euthydemus, and by the author 
of the argument to Aristophanes’ Acharnians, Euthymenes. 
But, as is shown by the inscription referred to (the long 
inscription which records the expenditure of the sacred 
treasure of Athens, Ol. 86. 4—8g. 2), the real name was 
Euthynus, a name which has also been preserved in the 
anonymous Life of Thucydides, § 8, and by the Scholiast 
on Lucian Tim. 30. In Plutarch (Pericles xiii), we find what 
at first sight appears to be a gossiping anecdote, about a 
workman employed on the Propylaea, and distinguished 
for his skill and zeal, who had fallen from a height so that 
his life was despaired of. Plutarch continues: ἀθυμοῦντος 
δὲ rod Περικλέους ἡ θεὸς ὄναρ φανεῖσα συνέταξε θεραπείαν ἧ 
χρώμενος ὁ Περικλῆς ταχὺ καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἰάσατο τὸν ἄνθρωπον" 
ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὲ καὶ τὸ χαλκοῦν ἄγαλμα τῆς Ὕγιείας ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἀνέ- 
στησεν ἐν ἀκροπόλει παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν, ὃς καὶ πρότερον ἦν, ὡς 
λέγουσιν. An inscription upon a pedestal of white marble 
still remaining z# sz¢u probably belonged to this very statue 
(C. 1. A. 335, ᾿Αθηναῖοι τῇ, ᾿Αθηναίᾳ τῇ “Tyelg). Two 
passages of Aristophanes may here be illustrated from 
inscriptions. In the Scholia on Knights, 969, Σμικύθης is 
asserted to have been a Thracian prince. But the occurrence - 


1 Ἔθνεα Βοιωτῶν καὶ Χαλκιδέων δαμάσαντες 
παῖδες ᾿Αθηναίων ἔργμασιν ἐν πολέμον 
δεσμῷ ἐν ἀχλνόεντι σιδηρέῳ ἔσβεσαν ὕβριν’ 

τῶν ἵππονς δεκάτην Παλλάδι τάσδ᾽ ἔθεσαν. 


The extant letters ae ENAIONEPAM/ 
PPOSAEIA 


Their appearance shows that they date from the time of Pericles: we must 
therefore suppose that they have been copied or restored. 


xvi THUCYDIDES. 


of the name Σμίκυθος, as the γραμματεύς of the ταμίαι τῶν 
ἱερῶν χρημάτων τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας (C. I. A. 130, Ol. 88. 4, B.C. 
425-424, the year in which the Knights was performed), 
proves the futility of this statement. The name was in fact 
borne by more than one Athenian citizen (cp. C.I. A. 60, 
433, 433, 437). The same or another scholiast is more for- 
tunate in the illustration of Birds, 1128— 


ἵππων" ὑπόντων μέγεθος ὅσον ὁ δούριος, 


which, he says, is a reference to a bronze figure of the 
Trojan horse dedicated in the Acropolis, and bearing the 
inscription— 

Χαιρέδημος EvayyéAov ἐκ Κοίλης ἀνέθηκε. 


And these very words inscribed on a pedestal (C. I. A. 406) 
have been discovered in the Acropolis. More important 
contributions te history are made by the τάξις φόρου (C. I. 
A. 32) of estimate of the Athenian tribute, which has been 
thought by sume to confirm the statement of the Orators 
respecting the doubling af the tribute during the Pelo- 
peanesian war (se intra Still more important is the 
insenptinn (CLT AL ass) over the Athenians of the tribe 
Brewhtheais, who fell all in the same year (about 460 BC.) 
a Cypras in Egypt, in Phoenicia, at Haheis in -Egina. and 
at Megara: ar that watuining the treaty made by Athens 
with Ame (Oo TE AL ΔΚ Supp) in the τας 41:5 BC 
Rah of these vewty the detals af Thacwdtes: and are 
wats waaay pages af PRodowws oar Piutarch. In the tribcte 
Bats of the wear aad Ro OLE AL 287) we Sad traces of a 
Waas Mire ia Geek erate 


fL OL SO, τ τὺ KX, ΝΣ <N mE ENC “AW ΑἿΣ tN 


Ths mated qomdktneg of the carder Geek Snorizcioms 
overs 2 wat aut be oomectam Ret theee bce maser 
WANS WP Woh The Coapectaral sestowasine οΣ ὑξοσσκοος & 
Wek BANK EHS γρηγδινες nad Ὁ Bees oe ween sespeces 
soar Sho sont af MSA bs τὸς caer 6 eeripcoes 
we BEE ὩΣ SN senso saMier Shar τὸ eee exer. 
Tike GRRE VE crm CA Be genes OLE AL ἀντ ὦ τ᾿ 


INSCRIPTIONS, XVil 


398, 419, 483) except in mere spelling are comparatively 
small. There are no recensions of the text; no glosses 
which have crept in from the margin, or inferences from 
the words of scholiasts that the reading may have been 
originally different. Far greater pains and time are neces- 
sarily taken in engraving than in writing; and, speaking 
generally, inscriptions are at first hand and there is no 
further risk from copying. The greater danger is from 
the unskilfulness or ignorance of the modern copyist, but 
the original is generally in existence, and the error can be 
corrected. Whereas MSS. have been written and rewritten 
many times, at each rewriting contracting some degree of 
inaccuracy, and changing to a certain extent their modes 
of spelling and forms of grammar in successive generations. 
Pen and ink are more pliable implements than the chisel, 
and the writer takes greater liberties than the engraver in 
the form and size of the letters. But inscriptions are 
monumental, and the words and letters in them have a 
fixed character; or, at any rate, only change with well- 
known changes in the alphabet. As a rule, in inscriptions 
of the fifth century each letter occupies the same space, 
and in supplying lacunae, however large, we can measure 
with a compass the number of letters required. Wherever 
the graver has been skilful the symmetry is perfect, and a 
straight line may be drawn horizontally, vertically, diag- 
onally through the centre of the letters. But in some cases 
the miscalculation of space has led to the crowding of the 
Jatter part of the inscription: and there are other examples 
(cp. C.I. A. Supp. 61 2, 71; Newton and Hicks, p. 61) in 
which the lines are not written accurately στοιχηδόν. Many 
of the later inscriptions differ from the earlier ones as much 
as the fairest copperplate from the first rude attempts of 
an illiterate person at writing; and may be truly called 
‘calligraphic’ from their beauty and regularity. 

But besides the greater uniformity of the writing, there 
is also a greater similarity in the modes of expression than 
in literary composition. Most public inscriptions have their 
sct beginnings and endings, thcir formulas of oaths, decrees, 


XVIil THUCYDIDES. 


sums, dates ; names of the archon, tribe, prytany, epistates. 
Some of them, as for example the lists of the quota (C. I. 
A. 226-272) paid out of the tribute of the allies to the 
Goddess, are arranged in years, and the imperfect members 
of the series may be filled up from those which exist ina 
more complete state. The number of such documents is 
considerable, and from their formal and official character 
they throw light upon one another. Hence it is not 
surprising, that while no human ingenuity, even when 
assisted by metre, can supply more than two or three 
letters in a corrupted text of the classics, and hardly so 
much in prose, parts of a line or of several lines in suc- 
cession may be restored with comparative certainty in an 
ancient inscription. Even a single letter occurring in a 
particular place may afford a clue to the contents of a 
whole line if the line is repeated elsewhere. The parallel in 
this case is not like the parallels cited in support of emen- 
dations of the classics, from which it is often fallaciously 
argued that an author wrote in one place as he did in 
another. For inscriptions are really full of the same forms, 
whereas there is only a faint presumption that the same 
turn of expression will occur more than once in a literary 
composition. Similarly. two or three letters of a name 
which usually accompanies some other name may give the 
key: e.g. the letters 


ΣΤΡΑΤΕΛΟΙΣ ...... NTIAEIKAIX= YNAPXO 


indicate the words στρατηγοῖς Νικίᾳ Νικηράτου Κιδαντίδη καὶ 
&vrapyovou, C. I. A. 273. Many restorations which appear 
improbable at first sight are nevertheless true: e.g. the 
following. which, though seeming to depend on slender 
grounds, is im reality certain (C. I. A. 37; ἃ. boc. ]. 4 ff.): 
XEPO| TON. ........ ΕΓῚ ΤΑΙ͂Σ POLEZ AYO [MEN 
ΕΓῚ ΤΑΣ EPI OPAIKEZ] AYO AE Ε[ΠῚ tONIAN AYO 
ATE EPIL ΝΙΕΣΟΥΣ AYO AE EPI HELLEZPJON- 
TO[N. Here. out of the hint of HELLEZFONTON con- 
tained in ONTO. the occurrence of the word ΠΟΛΕΙΣ. 
the repetition of AYO. combined with our knowledge of 


INSCRIPTIONS. ΧΙΧ 


the division of the tributary cities into four or five groups, 
an important part of an inscription is recovered. So much 
may be made out of so little. In this, as in other cases, 
the power of divination is relative to the nature of the 
materials, which create a method for themselves. [1 
the matter of early Greek inscriptions were varied like 
literary compositions, much less progress could be made 
in the interpretation of them. They would be curious 
fragments from which nothing of importance could be 
elicited. : 

It is this fragmentary character of Greek inscriptions 
which distinguishes the study of them from that of Assyrian 
or Egyptian. Before we can interpret them we have to 
restore them; or rather the interpretation and the restora- 
tion of them go hand in hand. It is another peculiarity in 
the study of them that a large literature can be brought to 
bear upon them; δ᾽ ἃ that we do not, as in the case of 
most other inscriptions, derive our knowledge of them from 
themselves only. 

Far greater than the temptation to emend is the tempta- 
tion to elicit a connected meaning from them. The inter- 
preter is apt to read into an inscription more than is 
really to be found init. The record of the contemporary 
history is necessarily imperfect, and he exercises his 
ingenuity in making anything which he knows fit in with 
the fragmentary document which he has to decipher. If, 
for example, he finds in an inscription (C. I. A. 55, indi- 
cated by the occurrence of datives in ats to be later than 
the goth ΟἹ., B.c. 420-417) a mention of sixty ships, he 
immediately calls to mind the sixty ships which the Athe- 
nian assembly at first voted to the Sicilian expedition, al- 
though this vote was never carried into execution; for a 
larger fleet was actually sent. But is it likely that such an 
inoperative decree which was superseded five days after- 
wards (Thuc. vi. 8; cp. 25) would have been recorded in 
an inscription? And might not the number sixty equally 
well refer to the second (vii. 20) or to some other expe- 
dition? Another example of the same weakness may be 


ΧΧ THUCYDIDES. 


found in the criticism on C.I.A. Supp. 46 a, where the 
letters KOPINOI! and AOENAI occur. It is conjectured 
by Kirchhoff that the inscription has reference to the visit 
of the Boeotian and Corinthian envoys to Athens, recorded 
in Thuc. v. 22. But of what value are such conjectures? 
Considering that some and not all the facts are narrated 
by the historian, and only a few legible inscriptions of the 
time are extant, it is ὦ priorz improbable that the number 
of coincidences should be very great. A few other in- 
stances may be given of a similar haste in drawing con- 
clusions. In an inscription, C. I. A. 54, which is again 
inferred from the occurrence in it of datives in ats to be 
later than the goth Olympiad, mention is made of 30 ships 
each having 40 hoplites on board, which are directed to 
collect ‘the tribute in full.’ These ships are identified 
with the 30 ships conveying 1200 Athenian hoplites which 
were sent to Melos in 416. But may not these numbers 
apply with equal probability to some other expedition 
in some way concerned with the tribute? The second 
coincidence of the 40 hoplites is of no value, as the same 
number of hoplites conveyed in a trireme occurs elsewhere 
(cp. Thuc. ii. 56 init.). Again, in a fragment of an inscrip- 
tion, C.I. A. 176, Boeckh (Staatsh. ii. 228) thinks that he 
discovers a reference to the moveable plates of gold 
(ἐσθῆτα ὃ) with which the statue of Athené was overlaid 
(Thue. ii. 13); but Kirchhoff, having a more accurate de- 
lineation of the text, reconstructs the inscription in an 
entirely different manner. 

One more warning against such divination may be added. 
From the fragment C. I. A. 51, when first discovered, it 
was inferred by Kirchhoff, (a2) that it recorded a remission 
of the tribute (with the exception of the quota of one- 
sixtieth paid to the Goddess) made to some subject city; 
(ὁ) that it dated from some year during the Peace of 
Nicias; the latter conclusion being based on the words 
ὅτι συνδιεπολέμησαν τομπόλεμον, an expression which was 
thought to imply that the war in question was concluded at 
the time. But six more fragments of the same inscription 


INSCRIPTIONS. ΧΧΙ 


have since been found (C. I. A. Supp. 51). It relates 
to the city of Neapolis in Thrace, and consists of two 
parts, the earlier dating from the archonship of Glaucippus, 
410; and Kirchhoff is compelled to adopt a much more 
elaborate explanation of the words relating to the ‘first- 
fruits paid to the Virgin,’ which he refers, not to Athené 
Polias, but to the local worship of Neapolis, and supposes 
to have been deducted from the Athenian tribute. But 
this explanation is only an hypothesis. All that can be 
said about the recently found fragments is that they do 
not confirm the old theory which Kirchhoff gave up, and 
that they contain no resemblance to the words in which 
the Methonzans are excused from the payment of their 
tribute with the exception of the quota (C.I.A. 40). Such 
conjectural interpretations should be guarded with the 
formula, ‘subject to any future discoveries.’ 

On the other hand, it may be objected, that if we carry 
our caution very far, and hesitate in attaching some frag- 
ment of an inscription to the narrative of an ancient writer, 
it becomes useless to us, and can be brought into no rela- 
tion with the history. And how great the temptation is to 
connect what we know with what we do not know may be 
seen in the early study of the hieroglyphics, and of the 
Sinaitic inscriptions. The true reply to the objection just 
urged is, that in any sound study of ancient Greek in- 
scriptions we must be prepared for slender results. And 
the general confirmation of ancient writers afforded by 
these slender results 15 far from unimportant. 

The additional facts obtained from inscriptions throw 
greater light upon Greek antiquities than upon Greek 
history. We know a good deal more than we did of the 
institutions and customs of the ancient Hellenes, of their 
family and religious life, of their games and festivals, of 
their public hospitalities, of their marriage and funeral cere- 
monies, of their military and civic divisions, of their public 
and private economy, of their assessments of tribute and 
taxation, of their societies for religious and social purposes. 
The constitution imposed by Athens on Erythre (C.I.A. 


XX THUCYDIDES. 


9), the oaths interchanged between the Athenians and the 
Chalcidians of Euboea (C.I.A. Supp. 27 4), and the in- 
ventory yearly drawn up of the treasures in the Parthenon 
are some of these new facts hitherto unknown to the 
historian. The business of life is stereotyped before our 
eyes. The annual accounts of the Athenian ‘Board of 
Admiralty’ are still preserved, not in books, but on tablets 
of Hymettian marble. A report is extant of the works of 
the Erechtheum while in course of erection (ἐξειργασμένα 
καὶ ἡμίεργα), B.C. 409 (C. I. A. 322; Newton and Hicks, 
xxxv); in a somewhat later inscription (C. I. A. 324) an 
estimate is given of the cost of the building, including the 
prices of the statues and the quantities of the columns. 
And all these things, though the records of them are but 
fragmentary, come to us, not strained through books, but 
fresh from the chisel of the workman. We dig among the 
crumbling remains of antiquity, and out of these is gradu- 
ally built up a real although very imperfect image of the 
past. 

It must not be forgotten, however, that inscriptions begin 
to grow numerous and legible as Hellas declines, and that 
the greater part of the notices preserved in them relate to 
the time, not of her glory, but of her decay. The historian 
of Athens becomes aware that a long study such as Boeckh 
devoted to these ancient documents adds little to our 
knowledge of Greek history in the fifth century before 
Christ, but a great deal to that of Alexandrian and Roman 
times. He may add the warning that we must not ante- 
date our knowledge, or transfer to the age of Pericles and 
Demosthenes institutions and forms of life which belong to 
succeeding centuries. 

The use of inscriptions was not unknown to Herodotus 
(i. 51, 187; ii. 106, 136, 141; iii, 88; iv. 87, 88, 91; v. 
59-61, 77; vi. 14; vii. 228; viii. 82), and Thucydides 
(vi. 54 fin, 59; cp. v. 18 fin, 23 fin., 47 fin. 56 med.), 
and became more frequent among later Greek writers. 
Collections were formed of them in the third and second 
centuries before Christ (see Boeckh, C. I. praef. p. viii). 


INSCRIPTIONS. ΧΧΙΝ 


Thus Philochorus the historian (fl. B.c. 307-263) is recorded 
by Suidas to have published ἐπιγράμματα ‘Arruda, Attic 
inscriptions. Polemo, a contemporary of Aristophanes of 
Byzantium (about 200 B.C.), is said to have composed a 
book upon ‘inscriptions found in the cities’ (Athenaeus, 
x. Ρ. 436 D, p. 442 E), and two other books, one ‘on the 
votive offerings at Lacedaemon’ (Athenaeus, xiii. p. 574 C), 
and another ‘on the votive offerings in the Acropolis’ 
(Strabo, ix. p. 396; Athenaeus, xi. p. 472 B, 486 D; xiii. 
587 C). A book of Theban inscriptions is attributed to 
Aristodemus, a Theban historian (Schol. Apollon. Rhod. ii. 
g06), and a work on the offerings of Delphi to Alcetas 
(Athenaeus, xiii. 591 C), and on offerings in general to 
Menetor (594 C); and there were other authors. The great 
collector of ancient times was Craterus the Macedonian, 
who published a work, Περὶ Ψηφισμάτων. From this work 
Boeckh supposes many of the decrees found in the Orators, 
especially in the Oration for the Crown, to have been 
extracted. The diligence of the 2nd century before Christ, 
like that of our own 19th, had no parallel in. earlier times. 
That the earlier historians made so little use of inscriptions 
is surprising to us. Again and again doubtful points of the 
history might have been verified or corrected, had the 
narrator once thought of examining the monuments of the 
temples. The names of the archons in Diodorus Siculus and 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus are probably derived from this 
source. But in general the examination of authorities was 
alien to the nature of the later Greek historians, even more 
than to Herodotus and Thucydides. For not only do the 
materials of history accumulate slowly, but the method of 
using them and any interest about the truth of them is 
even more slowly acquired. And mankind do not begin to 
search until the objects of their search are quite or nearly 
lost. The lives of hundreds and hundreds of scholars have 
been spent to regain, if it were possible, a small fraction of 
those treasures which lay open to the eyes of all Athenians 
and were passed by unheeded of them. 

One great interest of ancient inscriptions remains to be 


XXIV THUCYDIDES. 


mentioned. It is a striking thought that we have present 
to us some of the very words and letters on which the eye 
not only of the ancient historians, but of Themistocles and 
Pericles and Alcibiades must have gazed. Near to the 
spot on which it was originally erected has been found 
the inscription by which Pisistratus the son of Hippias 
commemorated his archonship. On the bronze serpent 
which supported the tripod dedicated at Delphi, and is now 
preserved in the hippodrome of Constantinople, may be 
read to this day the names of the allied states which fought 
at Plataea. In the Louvre at Paris is still to be seen the 
tablet (already referred to) on which a record is preserved of 
Athenians belonging to a single tribe who fell in one year in 
many distant lands, a living monument of the superhuman 
energy which at that time inspired the Athenian people. 
And although such a reflection adds nothing to our know- 
ledge, it increases the feeling with which we regard these 
monuments, and quickens and enlivens the study of them. 
It is not that the ancients themselves thought or could 
have thought of them with the interest which Greek history 
has imparted to them, or that Themistocles and Pericles 
derived their greatness from the works which were the ex- 
pression of it. But we, looking back, like to see with our 
own eyes what we have been reading and hearing about 
all our lives, and to be connected by a new, though a 
fanciful tie, with the past. 

One of the most important facts to be gathered from 
Greek inscriptions is the very general one, that none of 
them are older than the seventh century before Christ. 
Not only is little or nothing known of the ages which 
preceded, but the non-existence of records and documents 
seems to show that there was not much to be known of 
them. Hellenic civilisation and Hellenic art burst sud- 
denly into life: there was no knowledge ‘hoary with 
age’ (Plato, Tim. 22 B); nor any architecture or sculpture 
which had existed in the same form during thousands of 
years; nor slow growth or change of style such as was 
developed in medieval times; at any rate there is no 


INSCRIPTIONS. XXV 


evidence of it. Nor is there any reason to believe that the 
use of writing was common in Hellas before the Persian 
war. The Greek was not weighed down by records of 
his ancestors extending, as in Egypt, over many thousand 
years. The tradition of the Trojan war was the cloud 
which bounded his horizon; nothing which came before 
was known to him; nothing which followed had any real 
hold on his imagination. There may have been great 
actions performed in the Dorian settlement of the Pelo- 
ponnesus, or in the Messenian wars, but they made no 
impression on the mind of Hellas, which seemed to be 
absorbed and satisfied by the tale of Troy commemorating 
the common action of the whole people. 

That in the sixth and seventh centuries B.C. the practice of 
writing on stone or marble was rare, and still rarer that of 
writing on papyri and skins, seems to be proved negatively 
by the silence of Homer, the scarcity of written monuments, 
the non-existence of prose composition. But the interval 
between the Peloponnesian and Persian wars was prolific in 
inscriptions. At Athens, and probably in other centres of 
Greek life and religion, they must have been as numerous 
as the gravestones in a modern churchyard, and had as 
little sacredness in the eyes of posterity. And to pursue 
the homely simile a little further, as it is uncommon to 
meet with a tombstone of the seventeenth century in any 
parish churchyard and in any church which is not a 
cathedral, so in ancient times Greek inscriptions were liable 
to be constantly removed and were rarely preserved, ex- 
cept in a great temple such as the Parthenon at Athens, 
or the temple of Apollo at Delphi. There was not room 
enough for all; and the earlier and more valuable ones 
were buried under the accumulations of a later generation 
to which they yielded place. It is probably owing to the 
greater accumulation, and consequently to the greater de- 
struction of inscriptions which took place at Athens, that 
fewer archaic ones are to be found there than in the 
islands. 

The literary or poetical value of Greek inscriptions 1s 

VOL. ΤΙ. ς 


XXVI THUCYDIDES. 


not great. Few like the epitaph of Simonides on Archedicé 
(Thuc. vi. 59) bear the stamp of a great mind. To revert 
once more to our homely simile, they may be said to stand 
in the same relation to the works of the great lyric or 
dramatic poets, as the poetical or other effusions found in 
churches and cathedrals to the masterpieces of English 
literature, though preserved by Greek moderation and good 
taste from the absurdity and eccentricity of their modern 
counterparts. Two fragments in verse touch us with the 
common feeling of humanity. 
C.I.A. 463 (written βουστροφηδόν) :— 
[Etr’ dord]s τις ἀνὴρ εἴτε ξένος | ἄλ(λ)οθεν ἐλθών, 
Τέτ(τ)ιχον olxripals, ἄνδρ᾽ ἀγαθόν, παρίτω, 
ἐν πολέμῳ | φθίμενον, νεαρὰν ἥβην ὀλέσαν᾽τα. 
ταῦτ᾽ ἀποδυράμενοι νεῖσθε ext πρᾶγμ᾽ ἀγαθόν. 
C.I.A. 469 ---- 
Σῆμα Φρασικλείας" | κούρη xexdy[colpar | αἰεί, 
ἀντὶ γάμου | παρὰ θεῶν τοῦτο | λαχοῦσ᾽ ὄνομα. 

Two other inscriptions. have found their way into the 
Anthology. The first is attributed by the collector with- 
out much foundation to Anacreon. 

C.I.A. 381 :— 
Πρὶμμὲν Καλλιτέλης ἱδρύσατ[ο' τόνδε δ᾽ ἐκείνου 
Ely[ylovor ἐστήσαν[θ᾽, οἷς χάριν ἀντιδίδου]. 

(Anthol. Pal. 6. 148.) 
C.I.A. 403 :— 

[Τόνδε πυρῆς] ἀνέθηκε πολυμνήστου Plro[s vids] 

εὐξάμενος δεκάτην Παλλάδι τριτογενεῖ. 

Κυδωνιέτας (ιάτας or ιάτης ὃ) Κρήσιλας ἐργάσσατο. 
These last words are corrupted by the MSS. of the Anth- 
ology (Anthol. Pal. 13. 13) into— 

κυδωνίαι tas κρίσιας εἰργάσατο. 

The authority of Greek inscriptions is only impaired by 
the chance of their being more recent than the events to 
which they relate. When the human mind was seeking 
too late to recover the past, it was natural that the names 


INSCRIPTIONS. XXVil 


of kings or magistrates should be arranged in chronological’ 
order and inscribed on monuments. But such lists are 
justly suspected when they extend beyond the ordinary 
limits of Greek history. Who will guarantee the cata- 
logues of Olympian victors or Spartan kings whose names 
and dates alone are recorded, while of their actions we are 
ignorant? At any rate we cannot be certain of their 
genuineness, for they mount up to a time which is un- 
known to us, and we have no records by which we can 
test them. | 

A few ancient inscriptions, like that which recorded the 
peace of Cimon and was suspected by Theopompus on 
account of the Ionic letters (note viii. 56. 4), may have been 
forgeries or perhaps restorations of older inscriptions in 
accordance with a later tradition. Some, like the Sigean 
inscription, in the opinion of Boeckh, though maintained 
by Kirchhoff and others to be genuine, may have been 
imitations of the archaic. Others again, like the Parian 
marble, without being forgeries may be regarded as liter- 
ary works of a later age, having no more pretension to a 
monumental character than a MS. or printed book. 
Others erected by states or individuals may have been the 
expressions of some ancient tradition. Their character 
can only be determined by a familiar knowledge of the 
letters, words, and forms which occur in them and by their 
agreement with some other record of the events to which 
they refer. But owing to the deficiency of information, or 
the mutilation of the inscription itself, the diagnosis of the 
critic may often be at fault. The definition of forgery 
itself is not quite simple; for it admits of degrees ; fiction 
may easily mingle with truth ; and the deception may be 
more or less conscious to the inventor. In modern as well 
as in ancient times there have been a few instances of 
fraud. An archeologist of the last century (Fourmont) 
destroyed some of his materials and invented others 
(Boeckh, (Ὁ. 1. α. p. 61 ff.). At the time the inventor es- 
capes with impunity: there is no one to follow him in his 
travels through a country which can hardly be traversed 

ς 2 


XXVI11 THUCYDIDES. 


with safety: the knowledge and experience do not as yet 
exist which can detect his forgeries. But the time comes 
when some internal or external evidence rises up against 
him; when the use of a letter or a mark, the anachronism 
of thought or of fact, unexpectedly betrays him. Forgery 
has been much more difficult in the nineteenth century 
than in the eighteenth, and in the later half than in the 
first half of the century. It should be remembered also 
that literary forgery easily arises out of error; like many 
other kinds of dishonesty, it contains an admixture of inac- 
curacy. The careless enthusiastic scholar makes an im- 
perfect copy of a short fragment; he hastily restores it 
according to some preconceived idea, and he confuses in 
his mind or in his tablets his own restoration and the 
actual copy; he commits himself to some inference which 
he deduces from it, and the work of imposture is com- 
plete; he 
‘Makes such a sinner of his memory, 
as 
To credit his own lie.’ 

A lively imagination, the love of creating a sensation, 
the habit of poring over the same words or letters during 
many years may create a state of the intellect in which the 
distinction between truth and falsehood is lost. Theories 
crowd upon the discoverer thick and fast, and the facts of 
which he never had a firm grasp are easily, and perhaps 
unconsciously, bent or altered to suit them. But we need 
not pursue further the analysis of imposture. Before ac- 
cepting unhesitatingly the testimony of any archzologist 
to an ancient inscription, we must ask the old question, 
‘Where are the originals?’ 


The inscriptions which confirm or illustrate the narrative 
of Thucydides may be arranged in four classes :— 
I. Those relating to finance, in which are included— 
i. An estimate of the tribute to be paid by the allies, 
called τάξις φόρου. 
ii. The quotas of the whole sum actually reccived 


INSCRIPTIONS. XXIX 


which were deducted year by year from the tribute and 
paid over to the goddess Athené, being ,},th or a mina for 
a talent. (There were doubtless accounts of the larger 
sums received, but none of these have been discovered.) 

iii. Inventories of gold and silver plate and of other 
valuables contained in the Parthenon. 

iv. Accounts of sums paid out of the treasury and 
spent in expeditions, buildings, festivals, &c., and of debts 
owing or repaid to Athené and other deities. 

II. Decrees of the βουλή or ἐκκλησία (not financial) re- 
lating to persons, events, or institutions commemorated in 
. the history. Under this head are included treaties with 
foreign states, agreements with allies, grants of privileges to 
states or individuals. 

IIT. Dedicatory inscriptions. 

IV. Sepulchral inscriptions. 


The lists of quotas realize to us the greatness of the 
Athenian empire. Though not justifying the poetical boast 
of Aristophanes in the Wasps, 707, who reckons the number 
of Athenian tributaries at 1000, they contain the names of 
257 states: if we add some other cities mentioned in the 
τάξις φόρου only, the number will exceed 300. In neither are 
included numerous Hellenic cities on the Euxine and in 
the interior of Lycia and Caria, or the great island of Cyprus, 
which were allies, but with a few exceptions not tributaries ; 
in the language of Thucydides, σύμμαχοι but not ὑπήκοοι 
(vii. 57 init.) That they were present to the mind of Aris- 
tophanes when he described the Athenian empire as ex- 
tending ἀπὸ τοῦ Πόντου μέχρι Σαρδοῦς is evident. The relation 
of these cities to Athens would be generally of a friendly 
nature. Living under her protection, but not paying tribute, 
they were the outer defences of her empire. The cities of 
Macedonia were similarly situated, and for a similar reason 
were not included in the tribute lists, with the exception of 
three (C.I.A. 40 and 257), Methoné, Aéson, and Dicaeo- 
polis, which about 427 B.C. had their tribute remitted, all but 


ΧΧΧ THUCYDIDES. 


the quotas paid to the Goddess. They were in constant 
danger from the surrounding barbarians or from the Mace- 
donian kings, and having to defend themselves could not 
be expected to pay for others. Since they had it in their 
power at any time to become a part of the Macedonian 
kingdom, the imposition of a heavy tax would have been too 
severe a test of their loyalty. (See the inscription relating 
to Methoné, C. I. A. 40, and for a discussion of all these 
points, Kohler, Delisch-Attisches Bund, cap. 3). There 
was another class of tributaries, those on the Persian 
border, of whom we know but little ; they probably hesi- 
tated in their allegiance between the Athenians and the - 
Persian king, and paid tribute accordingly (cp. note on viii. 
5. 5). Several states, e.g. Amphipolis, Samos, are not to 
be found in the quota lists, although Thucydides numbers 
Samos among the tributaries of Athens (vii. 57 init.). (See 
Boeckh, Staatshaush. vol. ii. p. 657 ff.) By 424, when Cy- 
thera was reduced (iv. 57 fin.), the lists have become frag- 
mentary. The Athenian Cleruchi at Lesbos and other places 
seem not to have paid tribute (cp. Kirchhoff, Tributpflich- 
tigkeit der Att. Kler., Abhand]. der Berl. Acad., 1878). 

I.i. The τάξις φόρου (C. I. A. 37) is a vast inscription 
broken into about thirty fragments. Not more than a 
sixth part of the whole is preserved; and the position 
of several of the smaller fragments cannot be certainly 
ascertained. It is an estimate of the tribute to be paid 
by the allies, preceded by two decrees, out of which 
it is difficult to gather a connected meaning, though they 
evidently relate to the appointment of officers for the 
regulation of the tribute (‘two for the Chalcidian cities, 
two for Ionia, two for the islands, and two for the Helles- 
pont;’ 1. 5, p. xviii, supra), and contain penalties to be 
inflicted on the Prytanes if they fail in despatching the 
business before the assembly. The most interesting passages 
of these decrees which can be restored with any approach 
to certainty are the following. Line 22 ff. :— 

‘Let the Prytany A‘tgeis be required to bring these 
matters before the people as soon as it enters upon office, 


INSCRIPTIONS. ᾿ς ΧΧΧΙῚ 


on the third day when the sacrifices are over, before any- 
thing else; and if they be not completed on that day, let 
them be proceeded with on the following day before any- 
thing else; and so on until the business is finished within 
the term of the aforesaid Prytany: and if the Prytanes 
fail to bring it before the people, or do not finish the 
matter within their own term of office, let every one of 
them pay a fine of 10,000 drachmae.’ 

Another passage fixes the year of the inscription (1. 44 
ff.): ‘Thudippus proposed: That the cities for which the 
senate fixed the tribute, in the year of which Pleistias was 
the first Registrar (ἐπὶ τῆς βουλῆς # Πλειστίας πρῶτος ἐγραμ- 
μάτευε, see SchOmann, Alterthiimer, vol. i. p. 401), in the 
Archonship of Stratocles, shall all bring an ox to the 
great Panathenaea.’ The Archonship of Stratocles falls 
in Ol. 88. 4, and fixes the date of the inscription, or at any 
rate of the decree, to this year; it probably belongs to 
the first half of it (B.C. 425). Once more, |. 47 ff.: ‘The 
senate fixed the tribute of the cities in the year of which 
Pleistias was the first Registrar, in the Archonship of Stra- 
tocles, as follows.’ Then comes a long list of tributary 
cities, divided (as in some of the quota lists, see infra) into 
4 classes : (1) the Islanders ; (2) the Ionian and Carian cities ; 
(3) the Thracian ; (4) the Hellespontian cities. The list is 
very imperfect, and the payments imposed on the allies 
are still more so. The sums to be paid by the Islanders, 
νησιωτικὸς φόρος, and the names to which they are appended, 
are the most complete part. The names of one Ionian city 
and of twelve Carian (four of the Carian cities occurring 
nowhere else), with their tribute, are also preserved. Of the 
Thracian and Hellespontian tribute there are a few doubtful 
memoranda; of Thracian and Hellespontian names there 
are several, and many more Ionian and Carian, but unfortu- 
nately the amount to be paid is lost; and there are some 
sums with no names, or only fragments of names opposite 
to them. 

I. ii. The quota lists, like the τάξις φόρου, are very im- 
perfectly preserved. They are made up of many small 


xxxii THUCYDIDES. 


fragments ; the number at present discovered is about 150. 
They begin in the year 454 and end in 421 B.c. The por- 
tion of them with which the series commences was originally 
inscribed on a single rectangular block of Pentelic marble ; 
this ends in 440. Another, engraven on a similar block 
but more incomplete, and differently restored by Kohler 
and Kirchhoff, extends to 428 B.c. (Kohler) or to 432 B.C. 
(Kirchhoff). The other extant lists are engraven on tablets. 
A gradual change in the form of the letters is observable 
in the successive years. While the more archaic nowhere 
appear in them, the forms AABN/P$O still for a time remain. 
(Kohler, Delisch-Attisches Bund, p. 4.) The fragments of 
the inscription which have been discovered since the time 
of Boeckh enable us to correct two mistakes into which he 
has fallen: (1) he places the commencement of the series 
in 447 B.C. instead of 454; (2) he estimates the quota paid 
to the Goddess at ;}, instead of εἷς (see note on v. 18 fin.). 

Of these two great monuments we may remark that they 
have scarcely any connexion with each other. One relates 
to a single year, the other extends over a period of 33 years. 
The τάξις φόρου contains only the tribute to be paid by 
the Islanders, and a small part of the assessments made on 
the Ionians, Carians, and Hellespontians. The quota lists 
contain accounts more or less complete in different years 
of all these, as well as of the Thracian tributaries ; they are 
in some years nearly perfect, so that we cannot suppose 
many cities to be accidentally wanting in them. Of those 
subsequent to the τάξις φόρου we have only fragments of 
which little can be made. Nor are we certain that if 
both had been completely preserved to us the quota lists 
would have agreed precisely (pva ἀπὸ ταλάντου) with the 
τάξις φόρουι For the one is a record of the sums actually 
received, or rather of a portion of them, the other is 
only an estimate of money which the Athenian magis- 
trates meant or expected to collect. Moreover, the τάξις 
φόρου contains nearly fifty names not mentioned in the 
tribute lists, and these of course contain ‘many not found 
in the τάξις φόρου. 


INSCRIPTIONS. ΧΧΧΙΪΝ 


The passages in Thucydides which relate to the tribute 
are five in number. 

(1) i.96. ‘Thus the Athenians by the good-will of the 
allies; who detested Pausanias, obtained the leadership. 
They immediately fixed which of the cities should supply 
money and which of them ships for the war against the 
Barbarians, the avowed object being to compensate them- 
selves and the allies for their losses by devastating the 
King’s country. Then was first instituted at Athens the 
office of Hellenotamiz, or Hellenic treasurers, who received 
the tribute, for so the payment was termed. The amount 
was originally fixed at 460 talents. The island of Delos 
was the treasury, and the meetings of the allies were held 
in the temple.’ This was the φόρος imposed in the time of 
Aristides to which allusion is made in the treaty of 421 
between the Lacedaemonians and Athenians (see infra, v. 18). 
The time at which the transfer of the treasury from Delos 
to Athens was effected is not mentioned in Thucydides or 
in any trustworthy writer: the sole authority on which the 
date rests is that of Justin (iii. 6. 4), who places the event 
after the return of the Athenians from Ithomé, about 461. 
The year assumed by Kohler, 454, is a conjecture not im- 
probable in itself, but based solely on the fact that the series 
of the quota lists begins in that year (p. 99 ff., 107, 108.) 

(2) v.18 med. ‘The inhabitants of any cities which the 
Lacedaemonians deliver over to the Athenians may depart 
whithersoever they please and take their property with 
them. The said cities shall be independent, but shall pay 
the tribute which was fixed in the time of Aristides.’ 

(3) i. 99 init. ‘ The causes which led to the defection of 
the allies were of different kinds, the principal being their 
neglect to pay the tribute or to furnish ships, and, in some 
cases, failure of military service.’ 

(4) ii. 13 med. At the commencement of the war Peri- 
cles tells the Athenians that ‘the state of their finances 
was encouraging; they had on an average 600 talents 
coming in annually from their allies, to say nothing of their 
other revenue.’ 


XXXIV THUCYDIDES. 


(5) vii. 28 fin. Once more, after the fortification of Dece- 
lea we are informed, ‘It was at this time that they imposed 
upon their allies, instead of the tribute, a duty of five per 
cent. on all things imported and exported by sea, thinking 
that this would be more productive.’ (See note z# /oco.) 

In these passages nothing is said (4) of the steps by 
which the tribute was raised from 460 to 600 talents; or 
(ὁ) of the increase or diminution at different times in the 
number of tributaries; or (c) of the increase from 600 to 
1200 talents mentioned in the Orators, a fact which has 
been doubted by Grote chiefly in consequence of the silence 
of Thucydides. If light can be thrown upon any of these 
subjects it must be obtained from inscriptions. 

(a) and (4). Thucydides says that ‘the amount of the tri- 
bute was originally fixed at 460 talents.’ From the quota lists 
it appears that the amount paid by the allies was altered in 
the years 450 and 446 B.C., the effect of the new assessments 
being sometimes to raise, but more often to lower it, while 
in numerous cases it remained unchanged. Thasos, for ex- 
ample, was raised from 3 to 30 talents, while the Thracian 
Chersonese was lowered from 18 talents to 1 talent, Ephe- 
sus from 7% to 6 talents, Colophon from 3 to 14, Phocaea 
from 3 to 2; and there is a net reduction of 52 talents in 
all on the cities of which the names and payments have 
been preserved. We may conjecture that the rise in the 
Thasian tribufe is due to the increased productiveness of the 
silver mines on the island or the restoration of those on the 
continent, see Thuc. i. 101 ; and the diminution of it in the 
case of the Thracian Chersonese to the increasing dangers 
which threatened that part of the country. Such changes 
are also attributable to the rearrangement of the συντέλειαι, 
or groups of cities which contributed in common. The 
Sermylians pay a talent and a half after 450, but the Σερ- 
μυλιῆς καὶ συντελεῖς pay five talents after 446. We must 
suppose the general diminution to have been compensated 
by an increase in numbers, or the Athenians would have 
lost. Again, the average tribute between the years 446 and 
440, for which years the lists are fairly complete, taken from 


INSCRIPTIONS. XXXV 


190 cities, amounts to 423 talents and 3070 drachmae, the 
quota to the Goddess being 7 talents 351 drachmae. It is 
alleged that, if we allow for defaulters, this sum makes a 
near approach to the 460 talents fixed by Aristides. 

But how are these facts to be reconciled with the other 
statement of Thucydides that the Athenians, ‘at the be- 
ginning of the war, had on an average 600 talents coming 
in from their allies’? There are indications that the tribute 
of the cities was raised before the year 434 (Kohler, 438 
Kirchhoff ), the net increase in the Thracian tribute being 
17 talents, 940 drachmae. Now the tribute lists are frag- 
mentary, and the sums set against the names of the allies 
are only extant in a part of them. We must acknowledge 
therefore that most of the inferences which are drawn from 
them might have been different or have appeared in a 
different light if the whole of the great inscription had 
been preserved. They are all ‘subject to future dis- 
coveries ;’ and this particular inference is drawn only from 
the Thracian and from some of the Carian and Ionian 
cities. A glance at the table of tributary states printed at 
the end of Kirchhoff, C. I. A. vol.i, will show how imperfect 
our information is; and also that in many cases the pay- 
ment remained the same, and in a few was lowered instead 
of raised. But while recognising this general uncertainty, 
we admit with Kohler that there appears to be a rise in 
the amount of the tax shortly before the commencement of 
the war ; this rise may explain the difference between 460 
and 600 talents. We observe further that the rise is in the 
majority of cases effected by the reimposition of the rate of 
tribute found in the earliest extant quota lists, and there- 
fore probably of the original tax of Aristides, on the in- 
creased numbers of the Athenian confederacy. And there 
is reason to think that not all the tribute paid into the 
Athenian treasury was included in the tribute lists. 

We are more certain, however, of the general fact that 
the tribute was not a fixed sum, but liable to be increased 
or diminished on grounds at which we can only guess. It 
appears from Xenophon (?), De Republica Atheniensium, 


XXXVI THUCYDIDES. 


3. 5, that new estimates were made out every fourth year: 
τὸ δὲ μέγιστον εἴρηται πλὴν al τάξεις τοῦ φόρον τοῦτο δὲ 
γίγνεται ws τὰ πολλὰ δι’ ἔτους πέμπτου͵ As a rule they re- 
mained the same during the interval, but were liable to be 
changed at the end of it. They were originally framed in 
the first of the four Panathenaic years, but were afterwards 
transferred to the second (or from the third to the fourth 
year of the corresponding Olympiad), as appears probable 
from a comparison of the τάξις φόρου with the quota lists, 
(although it must be remembered that after the first fifteen 
years the latter become more fragmentary). The tribute 
lists show a succession of slightly varying amounts, not 
corresponding, at any time, exactly either to the sum of 
460 or of 600 talents. (Compare the qualifying words ὡς 
ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ in the financial statement of Pericles, ii. 13 med.) 
The original amount fixed by Aristides was remembered 
at the peace of Nicias as setting a limit to the exactions of 
the Athenians. | 

Thucydides further tells us (i. 99) that the allies soon 
began to contribute money instead of ships (ἐτάξαντο ἀντὶ 
τῶν νεῶν τὸ ἱκνούμενον ἀνάλωμα φέρειν), and we might have 
expected the total to be swelled by these additional con- 
tributions, But there appears to be no variation in the 
amount of the tribute, or rather of the quota to.the Goddess 
by which it is indicated, corresponding to this fact. It is 
true that the extant quotas only begin in the year 454 B.C., 
and that the change from money to ships may have been 
completed before that time. Still a difficulty remains. For 
the tribute imposed by Aristides, instead of falling from 460 
to 423 talents, would have been proportionably increased ; 
in other words, the defaulters in ships would have paid 
more money. As from the first it was arranged that some 
were to supply money and others ships, it can hardly be 
supposed that the latter are included in the contributors to 
the 460 talents. All the allies, with the exception of the 
Lesbians and Chians, had been reduced to servitude in the 
interval between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, and 
they had given up supplying ships to the common cause. We 


INSCRIPTIONS. XXXVI 


should expect therefore, unless their lands were transferred 
to Athenian citizens, as later in the case of Lesbos (iii. 50), 
that the allies who had once contributed ships would have 
increased the tribute recorded in the quota lists. The amount 
would have been swelled by large sums paid by the allies, 
made up both of penalties reimbursing the Athenians for 
the expenses of the war when they rebelled (cp. i. 101 fin., 
χρήματα ὅσα ἔδει ἀποδοῦναι αὐτίκα ταξάμενοι καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν 
φέρειν), and of taxes over and above the 460 talents con- 
tributed in lieu of the ships. But there is no trace of any 
such increase. Nor is it likely that the payments of the 
other allies were pro rata diminished, for the resources of 
the confederacy would have been proportionably impaired ; 
i.e. the Athenians would only have had the same amount 
of money and no ships or compensation for losses in war. 

Other questions arise to which we can give no answers, 
How and when were new states admitted? Why are sub- 
ject states such as Samos, and certain places cited as 
tributaries by Stephanus Byzantinus and the lexicographers 
from Craterus (Nymphaeum,—cp. NY in the τάξις φόρου, 
No. 24, Kohler,—Dorus, Deira, Marcaei), not included in the 
quota lists? Why do others, such as Melos which we know, 
and Thera, which we naturally suppose, to have been at the 
time allies of Lacedaemon, occur in the τάξις ddpov? Is it 
possible that tribute was paid of which no quota was dedi- 
cated to the Goddess, as we remark on the other hand that 
in some states (Methoné, son, Dicaeopolis) the quota to 
the Goddess continued to be paid when the tax had been 
remitted? Nothing either in the history or in the inscrip- 
tions throws light upon these difficulties, which though not 
insuperable, can only be matters of speculation. 

(c) No mention occurs in Thucydides of the doubling of 
the tribute money, a measure implied in the Orators, An- 
docides, De Pac. (iii.) 9, Aeschines, De F. L. (ii.) 186, who 
speak of above 1200 talents coming in during the peace of 
Nicias ; and attributed to Alcibiades by the Pseudo-Ando- 
cides (in Alcib. 11; see note on v. 18. 5). 

There is nothing improbable in the fact itself. The 


ΧΧΧΥΙΝ THUCYDIDES. 


measure could have been accomplished without risk either 
after the Athenian triumph at Sphacteria, when the Lace- 
demonian power was for a time paralysed, or during the 
peace of Nicias. The increase in the tribute would also 
account for the abundance of money which Athens is re- 
corded by Thucydides to have possessed immediately before 
the Syracusan expedition. And although the authority of 
the Orators is in general not great, it may be argued that 
Andocides was contemporary with the change, and that 
there is no reason for questioning his testimony to a fact 
which must have been notorious at the time. (But are we 
certain that the oration De Pace is genuine ?) 

Kohler and Kirchhoff always speak of this question as’ 
hitherto doubtful but now finally determined by the evi- 
dence of the monuments. In the note referred to above, 
it was assumed, on their authority, that the τάξις φόρου 
furnished a convincing proof of a great increase of the 
tribute money in the year to which it relates; an inde- 
pendent examination of the τάξις and a comparison of 
the quota lists show that the additional evidence has been 
greatly overstated, and that the fact still remains, as far 
as the testimony of inscriptions goes, unproven. 

The reader may be once more reminded, (1) that the 
τάξις φόρου is an estimate of the whole tribute to be re- 
ceived in the single year 432; and that it contains in any- 
thing like a complete form only the νησιωτικὸς φόρος, or 
tribute of the Islands, a portion amounting to about 3th 
of the Carian tribute, and one short fragment of uncertain 
value, supplemented by another short fragment relating to 
the Hellespontian tribute; (2) That the quota lists (though 
with several lacunae) extend over more than thirty years. 
One incomplete list (C.I.A. 259) and three smaller frag- 
ments (C.I.A. 251, 262, 263) are assigned to the same date 
as the τάξις φόρου, or to a date somewhat later, on the 
ground of the extensive variations which they present 
when compared with the earlier quota lists. In the case 
of 259, however, the resemblance to the older lists is more 
striking than the difference. A few other fragments are 


INSCRIPTIONS. ΧΧΧΙΧ 


extant of later date, but they throw no light on the present 
question. (One of these, 258, is supposed to belong to the 
last years of the war; another, 260, supplies the date of 
the whole series of quota lists. See note on v. 18. 5.) 

The facts are as follows. 

The Ionian tribute, of which some record is preserved in 
two of these later fragments (251, 262) and in the τάξις φόρου, 
exhibits a rise from 8 talents 2600 drachmae to 25 talents 
3100 drachmae. But (1) this calculation is made on a very 
inadequate basis, for only 6 out of 36 or 3th of the pay- 
ments of the Ionic cities can be compared with previous 
payments; and (2) the difference is more than accounted 
for by two cities: Clazomenae raised from 1} to 15 talents, 
Miletus raised from 5 to 10 talents. On the other hand, 
Colophon is lowered from 13 talents to 500 drachmae. 
And the one Ionian city, Elzus in Erythrza, which ap- 
pears in the τάξις φόρου, pays what it did before, 100 
drachmae. 

The Hellespontian tribute exhibits a rise from 68 talents 
2680 drachmae to 81 talents 4990 drachmae. This calcula- 
tion is made upon a total of 22 out of 44 cities, or 3, and is 
based only on the quota list contained in C. I. A. 259, which 
is not necessarily subsequent to the τάξις φόρου. A short 
memorandum of the Hellespontian tribute which occurs in 
the τάξις φόρου points to a very different result. It is a 
mere fragment, or rather we have two fragments, belonging 
to different inscriptions (for they overlap), of which one has 
been restored by conjecture from the other. They are as 
follows :— 

(1) C.I.A. 37. 2” (the lower portion) :— 

ELLE. "ONTIO¢OP 
=<PALZ .ON 
PAAAS PR HHI! 
~AIAIPOLES 
“T ANTAN 
POIT® 
NEZC 


x] THUCYDIDES. 


(2) C.1.A. 543, and Appendix :— 
ΚΕΦ 
ht hiF 
AKTA 


TT 
Ἑλλη[ σἸποντίου φόρ[ ου] 
᾿κεφάλα[ jor 
HhiPSO44MRHHH (295 talents 5300 drachmae) 
᾿Ακταῖαι πόλεις . 
TT “Avrav[dpos ( Cp. Thuc. iv. 52, 75; 

“Ῥοίτ[ ειον] Kohler, pp. 209, 210. 
Νησο- 


The restored inscription is supposed to prove that the Hel- 
lespontian tribute amounted to 295 talents 5300 drachmae. 
But the tribute calculated upon the lists of 446-440 was 
about 8o talents. The increase therefore, allowing for the 
rise previous to the war, would be at the rate of nearly 3 to 1, 
not of 2to 1. But if the longer fragment of the quota lists 
just mentioned is assigned to a date subsequent to that of the 
τάξις φόρου the increase would be only about ith. Thus the 
τάξις φόρου, supposing the conjectural restoration of the frag- 
ments to be admitted (and they certainly exhibit a curious 
coincidence), would prove too much, the quota lists too little. 

If we assume the total of the Hellespontian tribute to 
have amounted to the larger sum, we may suppose the 
cities of the Pontus to have been included in it: of four 
of these we perhaps find traces in the τάξις φόρον, NY[M- 
AION], KE[PAZOYE], PAT[RAEY=], NIK[ ANIA] 
(C.1.A. 37 2” and z’””, and Kohler, pp. 74, 75). The mag- 
nitude of the amount and the conjectural basis on which it 
rests raise a suspicion. If, on the other hand, we reject the 
coincidence and adopt the result deduced from the quota 
lists only, then the Hellespontian tribute was raised about 
4th. But this inference is drawn from the payments of not 
more than half (althcugh the more important half) of the 


INSCRIPTIONS. xli 


contributary states. And as in the case of the Ionian 
tribute, the whole difference or more than the difference is 
caused by a great rise in three states: Byzantium from 18 
talents 1800 drachmae to 21 talents 3420 drachmae; the 
Daunioteichitae from 1000 drachmae to 2 talents 4000 
drachmae; and the Selymbrians from goo drachmae to 9 
talents. 

The Thracian tribute contained in the same quota list, 
as far as we can Judge from even more imperfect data (for 
the calculation can only be based on a comparison of 22 
out of 61 cities, the remainder being effaced or wanting), 
exhibits not a rise but a fall, from 89 talents 1500 drachmae 
to 87 talents 3585 drachmae. 

The Carian tribute is obtained from the τάξις φόρου, 
which is compared with the quota lists of previous years, 
and from two fragments of the quota lists, C. I. A. 262, 263. 
The contributions of the towns admitting comparison are 
fixed in the earlier quota lists at 15 talents 2530 drachmae, 
in the fragments of quota lists supposed to be later and in 
the τάξις φόρου at 22 talents 4000 drachmae. 

This is the whole sum imposed upon fourteen cities, of 
which six are found in the quota lists and eight in the τάξις 
φόρου, the increase being confined entirely to the former, 
which show a rise from 12 talents 3000 drachmae to 19 
talents 4500 drachmae, while in the τάξις φόρον compared 
with the earlier quota lists there is on the whole a very 
slight decrease, viz. from 2 talents 5530 drachmae to 2 
talents 5500 drachmae. But the entire calculation rests 
on a most insufficient basis, the names and payments 
legible being only 14 out of 68. 

Lastly, we have the Island tribute, which is obtained from 
the comparison of the τάξις φόρου alone with the earlier 
quota lists. From this comparison we find that the tribute 
is very nearly doubled; it increases from 59 talents 4800 
drachmae to 119 talents 5000 drachmae. But this calcula- 
tion again rests on insufficient grounds, though considerably 
fuller than any of those which have preceded. For the 
names and assessments of 16 places out of 28 are still legible. 

VOL. II. d 


xlii THUCYDIDES, 


And this is in fact the main argument: ‘The νησιωτικὸς 
φόρος, of which a little over the half has been preserved 
to us, is more than doubled ; and the accounts of the other 
tributaries, if they were preserved, would show that they 
had been raised in a nearly similar proportion.’ 

The figures which form the basis of these calculations 
are taken from the table of tributary cities and the amount 
paid by them at the end of Kirchhoff, C.I.A., vol. i. It is 
an element of uncertainty which must not be overlooked, 
that owing to the incomplete state of the tribute lists we 
can often only compare the τάξις of 425 or the tribute 
recorded in the later fragments with the tribute actually 
paid many years before. 

Let us now consider the nature of the proof, or rather 
want of proof, that pervades the whole argument :— 

(1) None of the comparisons are made upon an adequate 
basis, being taken only upon about 3th (Ionia), 3 (Helles- 
pont), 4rd (Thrace), 3th (Caria), } (Islands). 

(2) None of the sums obtained exhibit a ratio of 2:1; 
but of 251. 3100 dr. : 8t. 2600 dr. (Ionia); 81t. 4990 dr.: 
68 t. 2680 dr. (Hellespont, quota list, 257); 87 t. 3585 dr.: 
89 t. 1500 dr. (Thrace, quota list, 257); 22t. gooodr. : 151. 
2530 dr. (Caria); 119 t. 5000dr. : 59t. 4800 dr. (Islands, 
τάξις φόρου). 

(3) The whole number of cities which furnish the increase 
is only 80. Of these 7 are precisely doubled; 34 pay the 
same tribute as before. | 

(4) The irregularity in the increase of the tribute in the 
states of which the names and payments are preserved to 
us makes it impossible to argue with any degree of cer- 
tainty from them to the states whose names and payments 
are unknown to us. And the comparison of the earlier 
quota lists shows that extensive, and to us inexplicable, 
changes in the amount paid were far from uncommon. 

(5) If the largest fragment of the quota lists (no. 259), 
containing part of the Thracian and Hellespontian tribute, 
be assumed to be contemporary with or subsequent to the 
τάξις φόρου, the evidence obtained from it is rather un- 


INSCRIPTIONS. xiii 


favourable than favourable to the hypothesis of the doubling 
of the tribute. But if no connexion can be established 
between the quota lists and the τάξις φόρου, or only between 
the quota lists and three small fragments of the τάξις, then 
the argument turns wholly on the probability that the 
assessments of the other states were raised in the same 
proportion as those of the Islanders. It may be argued 
in reply to what is only a presumption that the Island 
tributaries were more completely under the control of the 
Athenians, and therefore more likely to have had their 
tribute raised. 

Thus we are driven to the conclusion that the uncertainty 
respecting the doubling of the tribute has not been entirely 
removed. It is very probable that the Athenians as they 
increased in power increased their demands on the allies. 
It is more probable than not that Andocides (?) was right 
when he implies that the tribute had increased from 600 to 
1200 talents, for the increase must have taken place in his 
own time. Neither he nor any one else says that the 
tribute was doubled in 425; his statement would be satis- 
fied if the Athenians were receiving 1200 talents from their 
allies at any time during the peace of Nicias. Nor is the 
argument strong from the silence of Thucydides. His 
manner of writing is so different from that of a modern 
historian, that it is difficult to argue beforehand what events 
or measures he would have inserted in his history, and what 
he would have omitted. ΑἹ] these probabilities remain 
as they were before. But not much can be added to the 
argument from an examination of inscriptions; except as 
regards the Islands they leave the question nearly as it was. 

One other statement remains to be discussed. It is as- 
serted with confidence by Kohler (p. 129) that the quota 
lists contain mention of arrears. This assertion rests (1) on 
the fact that the names of certain states occur twice or even 
oftener in the same lists, being those of the fifth and eighth 
years; and (2) further, in the sixth and eighth lists some 
coincidences appear of defects and excesses in the payment. 
Abdera, for example, in the sixth year pays a quota of 

d 2 


xliv THUCYDIDES. 


1400 drachmae to the Goddess, 100 drachmae less than the 
ordinary payment: in the eighth year there is no entry of 
a larger payment, but a small sum of 100 drachmae is 
recorded. It is inferred therefore that, while the regular 
payment is lost or effaced, the 100 drachmae represent 
the arrear of the sixth year. In like manner the ordinary 
payment of Thasos is 300 drachmae, whereas in the sixth 
year the treasury of the Goddess only acknowledges the 
receipt of 246 drachmae. But there appears in the eighth 
year a single payment of 54 drachmae credited to Thasos. 
This again is explained as an arrear, 246 drachmae and 54 
drachmae = 300 drachmae. Once more, the whole pay- 
ment of Dardanus in ordinary years is 100 drachmae. But 
Dardanus is found paying 46 drachmae in the sixth year 
and 54 in the eighth year. Upon these three coincidences 
the theory of arrears seems chiefly to rest. 

We may assume that there is some explanation of the 
same names recurring more than once in the lists. But it 
does not follow that the explanation can be discovered in 
the extant lists with any degree of certainty. To the 
theory of arrears several objections may be made. (1) The 
alleged coincidences are only found in three instances. 
Thirteen other instances are cited by Kohler as of more or 
less weight; but in three of these the payment of the sixth 
year is fragmentary; in two the payment of the sixth year 
only, in eight the payment of the eighth year only is pre- 
served; so that there is no possibility of comparison. (2) 
In four of the entries belonging to the eighth year we find 
the names recorded not twice but only once; and we con- 
jecture from the smallness of this payment that the regular 
tribute must have found a place somewhere else. But of this 
there is noevidence. (3) In the three principal instances the 
arrears supposed to be paid up belong not to the previous 
year, but to the year before that. Are we to suppose that 
there was first of all a part payment and an arrear, then a 
full payment in the following year, and in the year after 
that a full payment with the arrear paid up? May we not 
suggest that if the quota lists had been perfect this and 


INSCRIPTIONS. xlv 


some other inferences which have been drawn from them 
would disappear? (4) There is some presumption that the 
arrears of the quota, if they entered into the accounts at all, 
would be more numerous; and (5) that they would be 
described under a separate heading. 

Another almost equally probable explanation of the 
repetition may be gathered from the quota lists them- 
selves. The names of several cities occur twice over in 
the fifteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth years of the 
quota lists, the first time for a larger sum, the second 
time for a smaller. Against the second sum is added the 
word ἐπιφορᾶς, or additional tribute. For example, in the 
Ionian quota (fifteenth year) there is an entry of a pay- 
ment from the Notians, 33 drachmae 2 obols, which is 
immediately followed by a second entry,—‘ Νοτιῆς ἐπιφο- 
pas 5 drachmae 3} obols.’ Of such entries there are in 
all about twenty. It is perhaps worth observing that they 
all belong to a period later than the supposed arrears. 
It may also be remarked that amongst these repeated 
entries occurs the following, —‘ Aapdavijs 100 drachmae, 
Δαρδανῆς ἐπιφορᾶς 4 drachmae 2 obols;’ and that the name 
Δαρδανῆς also occurs among the supposed arrears in the 
eighth year of the lists. It is evident then that other pay- 
ments besides the φόρος are included in the quota lists, and 
it is possible that the sums afterwards called ἐπιφοραί were 
inserted in the earlier lists without a distinguishing note. 
What was the nature of these payments we cannot pre- 
cisely tell. They may have been arrears; or they may 
have been payments about which there was a dispute be- 
tween the allies and the Athenians; possibly they were 
dues or fines, or rather percentages of them paid to the 
Goddess. One conjecture is as good as another. But 
instead of offering conjectures which are gradually as- 
sumed to be certainties, it is better simply to acknowledge 
that the repetition of the same names in the same year, 
sometimes with, sometimes without the mark ἐπιφορᾶς, is a 
curious fact which remains unexplained. 

Some lesser points of connexion between the inscriptions 


xl vi THUCYDIDES. 


relating to the tribute and the narrative of Thucydides are 
the following :— 

(1) The name of Melos occurs among the tributaries in 
the τάξις φόρου (B.C. 425-424). But Melos was not taken 
by the Athenians until the year 416 B.c. There is how- 
ever no necessary discrepancy between the inscription and 
the narrative. The τάξις φόρου, as has been already re- 
marked, is only an estimate of money to be received, not 
a record of actual payments, and therefore the sum set 
down may not have been received. In the preceding year 
the Athenians had made an attack on Melos (iii. οι), but 
without success. It may be conjectured that they there- 
upon inserted the name of the island in the τάξις φόρου as a 
pledge to themselves of their own intention to enforce their 
demand. If the tax was really paid by Melos, we must 
suppose Thucydides, who in his first enumeration of the 
allies (ii. 9 fin.) had described the Melians as not ὑποτελεῖς 
φόρου, to have been ignorant of the fact, since in that case 
he would not have spoken of the Athenians as failing in 
their attempt to force Mclos into the alliance (iii. 91 init.). 

(2) A sum of three talents (i.e. a quota of 300 drachmae) 
is said in the list (C. I. A. 257) for the year 427 or 426 to 
have been paid by the islanders of Thera; and this is raised 
in the estimate of the τάξις φόρου, 425 B.C., to five talents. 
In C.I.A. 38, a decree relating to the φόρος, but of uncer- 
tain date or meaning, there occur the words [ἐξέσ]τω δὲ καὶ 
Σαμίοις καὶ Onpaio[ts], showing that both were under some 
special regulation. Yet at the beginning of the war the 
Theraeans as well as the Melians are described as allies, not 
of the Athenians, but of the Lacedaemonians (πᾶσαι at ἄλλαι 
KuxAdées πλὴν Μήλου καὶ Θήρας, ii. 9 fin.). Now it seems 
impossible that a new tribute could have been imposed be- 
fore the Peloponnesian War on an island which is expressly 
excluded by Thucydides from the number of Athenian 
allies and tributaries. But it is not unlikely that at some 
time in the course of the war the island may have been con- 
quered by the Athenians, or may have submitted to them, 
and that Thucydides may have either forgotten the fact or 


INSCRIPTIONS, xvii 


have not thought it worth mentioning. It is possible also that 
both Melos and Thera may have been original members of 
the Delian confederacy, and, though not included in her re- 
gular tributaries, may have made some payment to Athens. 

For references on the subject of Melos and Thera, see 
note on v. 84. I. 

(3) In the account of the expedition against Cyprus 
(Thuc. i. 112) the Athenians are said to have left Citium 
in consequence of the death of Cimon, and also of a famine 
which occurred. It is observed by Kohler (p. 130) that the 
year of this famine (449) coincides with the year of a de- 
falcation in the tribute money, viz. the arrears of the sixth 
year just discussed. But the defalcation is itself uncertain, 
and it is very doubtful whether there is any trace here of a 
real coincidence. For the famine is in Cyprus, but the 
supposed defalcation is about the shores of the A¢gean 
extending to the Hellespont. Such an attempt to piece 
one fragment of knowledge with another seems to arise 
only out of the slenderness of our materials. 

(4) Among the facts which we learn with certainty from 
the tribute lists is the division of the φόρος into the ᾿Ιωνικὸς 
φόρος, ἙἙλλησπόντιος φόρος, ἐπὶ Θράκης or Θράκιος φόρος, 
Καρικὸς φόρος, and Νησιωτικὸς φόρος. The earlier lists have 
no regular arrangement, or only a very rough one. E.g. at 
the beginning of the sixth list the Narisbareans of Caria or 
the adjoining countries, the Tenedians, the Gentinians of 
the Troad, the Stagirites, the Cerameans of Caria, the 
Camireans of Rhodes, the Halicarnassians, the Myrinaeans 
of Lemnos, and the Mecybernaeans of Chalcidicé follow 
each other. 

After the ninth list the geographical division prevails ; 
and in the twelfth and subsequent lists (from 443 B.C.) the 
cities of each division are headed by the titles Twrtxds φόρος, 
etc. About seven years later the Ionian and Carian tribute 
is united (C. I. A. 244). The names of the different states 
are placed under their respective heads, but no geographical 
or other order is observed, nor do the same names follow 
each other in successive lists. We seem to find traces of 


xIvili THUCYDIDES. 


the division in Thucydides, ii. 9 fin.: ἄλλαι πόλεις αἱ ὑπο- 
τελεῖς οὖσαι ἐν ἔθνεσι τοσοῖσδε, Kapla ἡ ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ, Δωριῆς 
Καρσὶ πρόσοικοι, ᾿Ιωνία, Ἑλλήσποντος, τὰ ἐπὶ Θράκης, νῆσοι 
ὅσαι ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσον καὶ Κρήτης πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα, 
πᾶσαι αἷ ἄλλαι Κυκλάδες πλὴν Μήλου καὶ Θήρας. 

(5) A fragment containing a very full list of the Thracian 
cities was referred by Kohler to ΟἹ. 87.1, and was thought 
by him to prove that Potidaea, Olynthus, Spartolus, and 
other cities which revolted in that year (432) must have paid 
tribute just before the revolt took place. The rearrange- 
ment of the stone by Kirchhoff, who puts the list back to 
436 (Ol. 86. 1), puts back also the record of the payment. 

How the tribute to be paid by each city was fixed we 
do not know with certainty. At the end of the later lists a 
few cities occur under the headings πόλεις αὐταὶ φόρον ταξά- 
μεναι, and πόλεις ἂς of ἰδιῶται ἐνέγραψαν φόρον φέρειν, and in 
a fragment which may belong to a quota list or to ἃ τάξις 
φόρου (Kohler, p. 82, No. 7; C.I.A. 266) occur the headings— 


Πόλεις ἂς ἔτ]αξαν of τάκται 
7ον γραμματεύοντος. 
Πόλεις ἂς ἡ] βουλὴ καὶ οἱ πεντακόσιοζι] 
(?) οἱ ἠλιασταὶ ἔτ]αξαν. 


Kohler, pp. 66, 136, comparing these headings with the 
fragment of the τάξις φόρου of 425, and with a report of the 
ψήφισμα of Tisamenus providing for the revision of the an- 
cient laws after the fall of the Thirty (Andocides, De Myst. 
83), and of a law preserved by Demosthenes (c. Timocr. 
20 ff.), concludes that after the vote of the assembly ordering 
ἃ τάξις to take place, the amounts to be imposed upon the 
cities were fixed in the first instance by a board of τάκται 
(numbering 10, Kohler, 8, Kirchhoff, C. I. A. 37). The 
tribute as proposed by them was then discussed and passed 
in the senate, before which any private person (ἰδιώτης) 
might propose amendments (cp. the ψήφισμα of Tisamenus, 
ἐξεῖναι δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτῃ τῷ βουλομένῳ εἰσιόντι els τὴν βουλὴν 
συμβουλεύειν ὅ τι ἂν ἀγαθὸν ἔχη περὶ τῶν νόμων), and there 
was an appeal to a court of 500 dicasts, who might grant 


INSCRIPTIONS. xlix 


claims for a diminution of tribute made by the cities 
themselves (πόλεις αὐταί: cp. φόρον ὃν ἂν πείθω ᾿Αθηναίους, 
p. Ixvi infra). This seems to be the most probable ac- 
count of an obscure subject. 

A considerable fragment of a decree respecting the tribute 
is contained in C.I.A. 38, but no connected meaning can 
be elicited from it. Certain cities seem to be spoken of 
as defaulters, to whom commissioners are sent to exact the 
tribute. The names of those who pay the tribute are to be 
written up on a tablet by the Hellenotamiae, and some- 
thing is granted or done to ‘both the Samians and the 
Theraeans’ (cp. above). There follows a mention of ém- 
peAnral, and of a general or generals. Any attempts made 
by citizens of the tributary states to evade the ‘decree re- 
specting the tribute ’ may be brought before the ἐπιμεληταί ; 
the ἐπιμεληταί are to bring them before the dicastery, the 
cases to be tried within a month. If the accused are con- 
demned, the dicastery is to impose a penalty. Something 
not very intelligible is said about the election of collectors 
of the tribute (ἐκλογεῖς). According to another fragment 
(see C. I. A. 38 @ Supp.) defaulters are to be written up. 
If an unjust accusation is brought, the accuser is to be 
fined. If no proper summons has been given, the senate 
is to settle the matter. 

It is impossible to say whether the ψήφισμα τὸ τοῦ φόρου 
referred to in 38 f. 1. 10 is the τάξις φόρου of 425 or not. 
For the date of the inscription is uncertain, and there was 
a τάξις φόρου every four years. 

I. iii, Another class of inscriptions illustrating Thucy- 
dides are the accounts of the treasures of Athené. They 
are divided into three series: the first containing the 
treasures of the Pronaos, or front room of the temple; 
the second, the treasures of the Hecatompedon, or centre 
room; and the third, the treasures of the Parthenon pro- 
perly so called, being the interior and most sacred part 
of the building. The accounts, or more correctly speak- 
ing, the inventories of these treasures, which were made 
up annually, commence in the year 434, and extend over 


1 THUCYDIDES. 


nearly the whole of the Peloponnesian War, the account 
of the treasure of the Parthenon lasting, with gaps, up 
to 411; that of the Pronaos up to 407; that of the Heca- 
tompedon to 405 or 404. 

Pericles, in estimating the resources of the Athenians, in- 
cludes among their treasures (ii. 13) ‘ uncoined gold and silver 
‘in the form of private and public offerings, sacred vessels 
‘used in processions and games, the Persian spoil, and other 
‘things of the like nature, worth at least five hundred talents 
‘more. There were also at their disposal, besides what they 
‘had in the Acropolis, considerable treasures in various 
‘temples. If they were reduced to the last extremity, they 
‘could even take off the plates of gold with which the image 
‘of the Goddess was overlaid: these, as he pointed out, 
‘weighed forty talents, and were of refined gold, which was 
‘all removable. They might use the gold taken from the 
‘Goddess in self-defence, but they were bound to replace 
‘all that they had taken.’ 

These inventories are for the most part repetitions of 
each other. Each of them, except the last inventory of the 
treasures of the Pronaos (see below), is headed by a regular 
form of words, e.g. ‘These things the stewards of the sacred 
‘treasure of Athene, Eurectes of Atené and his colleagues, 
‘to whom Apollodorus the son of Critias of Aphidnae was 
‘registrar, handed over to the stewards to whom Diognis 
‘the son of Isander of the Piraeus was registrar; having 
‘received them from the previous stewards to whom Euthias 
‘son of Aeschron of Anaphlystus was registrar.’ 

‘In the Pronaos.’ (C. I. A. 119.) 

Then follow the actual inventories. 

In the first year however of each Panathenaic period 
the treasures are said to be handed over to the stewards 
of the year by ‘ the officers of the four preceding years, who 
gave in their accounts from one Panathenaea to the next.’ 

During the twenty or thirty years over which the lists 
extend they gradually increase in length (in the language 
of the inscriptions, ἐπέτεια ἐπεγένετο---- these are additions of 
the year’) until the final collapse. They are silent witnesses 


INSCRIPTIONS. li 


to the growth, decline, and fall of the first Athenian empire, 
the last record of the treasures of the Hecatompedon ap- 
pearing in a fragment which is assigned on palaeographical 
and other grounds to 405 or 404 B.C. The inventories re- 
appear a few years later, though the form of them is different. 
The treasures consisted of gold and silver plate, bowls, 
cups, crowns, horns, couches, tables, chairs, censers, baskets, 
of gilded and golden as well as of silver and plated articles, 
and of arms. We find among them a gilded lyre, four ivory 
lyres, a flute case, a ‘figure of a girl upon a pillar,’ a ‘horse, 
a griffin, the face (or forepart) of a griffin, a griffin, the head 
of a lion, a necklace (or wreath) of flowers, a dragon; all 
overlaid with gold.’ The entire value of them, as far as can 
be estimated by their weight, is not great, probably not ex- 
ceeding at the beginning of the war ten to twenty talents, 
to which must be added a moderate sum for the workman- 
ship’. A sample of the character of these treasures will 
be given by the last inventory of the articles contained in 
the Πρόναος, Ol. 93. 2, 407-406 B.'c. If we can trust a very 
conjectural restoration, which however derives some sup- 
port from the exceptional character of this last inscription, 
they are recorded at the end of it to have been handed 
over to the Hellenotamiae, i.e. devoted to the purposes of 
the war, in the following year, Ol. 93. 3. The Athenians 
however do not appear to have availed themselves to any 
considerable extent, if at all, during the time which the 
lists severally cover, of the resource hinted at by Pericles. 
This inventory is as follows :— 


131 silver bowls. . . weighing 2 tal. 432 drachmae. 
3 silver horns . . . » 528 » 
5 silver cups . . . ” 167 ” 
1 silver lamp. . . ” 38 » 
7 silver bowls » 700 » 
1 golden crown (in a round ‘case) ” 33 » 3 obols. 
asilver bowls. . . ” 200 


1 It would thus appear that the articles enumerated in these records form but 
a small part of what may be termed the miscellaneous treasures of the Athe- 
nians, which are estimated by Thucydides at 500 talents. These, however, 
include the whole mass of uncoined gold and silver, as well as many articles of 
value unweighed. 


Ait τος POIDES, 


+ 


sale few ls weisung 829 drachmae. 


t siver Chaos cop we 40 "᾿ς 
Σ saver tewis ἊΝ 9206 Pt 

I κεῖνος con . .- 40 39 
gxuwertowls - 420 9 

Σ Soyer ἵν ἵν . " 643 ” 2 obols. 
ἃ saver howls. . - 231 ” 

τ τλες ce . as 66 ” 

τ ποτα lars . “ 33 r 

3 MAG Wests Ν 294 7 

ἃ NIV Vessels. . .- 413 e 

τ Nlver vweysel .- 12 » 


Hover ces 
SNES Vesae) 


NAGE Sup . 


t 
Soh 


SP τε We” 
-- τὸς ΓῚ δον 


ἘΝ Ἐν πος 
SUES ναοῦ 


tye 


ιῦ. Ge far 
“A O Ww 
4 


0 ὦ “en 
£ 
H 


DURE Vi In τὰν . 
ECVEE V's . ΤΙΣ -- 
T SUVS νωνοὶ δος παπξοξς. 
λυ τ Se FF Τὴν rave Se ν απο ον 5. ἊΣ “ Ξ» 
ΚΟ APS SVS cst Αὐτὸ foam: jor " 3s oo 
«ἷν Show ol awe PANS vTvwe . . \ τ ~ 
2308 2 
se 29“ νὲν ve 


CNL toaeras ate ἃ vcrw fragmentary series of the 
accounts of che coder deuress np witch che aames occur of 
Erephacstun ἔσκον Ὕττος and Bescieed of Sunium, 
bier, Diotysusn τὰς Morher of the Gais. Zeus Artemis 
"Bese and Astemts 7 seer an Ann anc some Attic 
Metres op CLL Nata As to the amtoant or character of 

. 


the wroasuey Titvlg cat ὺς τλλὸς car oa ctemth em the sale 
- se » Ly - 

ΟΣ cavtves δ ξ ι μάταιος τὰ CAT rated cirtemis 

- 4 - - ν,οΟυἁᾶϑννια κ» Ἀ man 5 - πων » se " = 

Anaemean τὰν τὸν τοῦτος gts tone ace is πον by 
. = -. a ον MMe τ'νὸ νι ἢ ΓΝ e «8 ere oe “- “τὸν " - 

Ὧ ee ἧς ~~ ΒΗ 8 Bens wee NAR WS Bay WTS ΐ οἷν δι μὸν (ing —_— 


et. Braue. 


as 


ak aed Me ae Ws aN ΠΝ .. dae 


made Teed amar Tanke Saeares 


τος Cae τ UTR nea. 


Tt πῶν ὃς art νον τος ΝᾺ Newsooe ate Ess τὸ 41} 


INSCRIPTIONS. liit 


that the words τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν προσετίθει χρήματα οὐκ 
ὀλίγα are not necessarily connected with τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν in 
the expression ταμίαι τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν. For Thucydides is 
speaking of temples ‘other than those on the Acropolis,’ or 
‘other than the Parthenon.’ (That there were temples on 
the Acropolis besides those of Athené is clear from ii. 15, 
τὰ yap ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί.) But 
the treasures of the other deities were certainly at a later 
date, and perhaps at the beginning of the war (C.I.A. 32) 
kept on the Acropolis and in the Parthenon. 

I. iv. We will now pass to the inscriptions relating to the 
payment of debts to the temples and the expenditure of 
public money. Among them one of the most important is 
C.I.A. 32, a decree of the senate and people which, after 
mentioning the repayment of 3000 talents to the Goddess, 
provides for a further repayment to the other deities out of 
certain funds which had been already set apart for this 
purpose by a vote of the assembly. Part of these were 
in the hands of the Hellenotamiae, another part was to 
be obtained from a tithe of the produce of land or spoils (?) 
when let out or sold (?), τὰ ἐκ τῆς δεκάτης ἐπειδὰν πραθῇ. 
The thirty λογισταί, or accountants, now in office are to 
calculate exactly what is due to the deities: these officers 
are to be called together at the discretion of the senate. 
(The τριάκοντα mentioned in the heading of the first and 
third quota lists are probably identical with the λογισταί, 
see Kohler, p. 106.) When the money is paid back, all 
records of the debt are to be searched for and cancelled. 
The sum thus repaid is to be placed in the hands of 
ταμίαι. These are to be elected at the same time as the 
other magistrates, and in the same manner as the ταμίαι 
of the treasures of Athené. They are to receive the 
money of the other deities from other ταμίαι, émoraral, and 
ἱεροποιοί of different temples who are at present in charge 
of it, and to deposit it in the Opisthodomus of the Par- 
thenon. They are to register the amount belonging to 
each deity and to all collectively, and to keep an annual 
account from one Panathenaic festival to another, like the 


liv THUCYDIDES. 


treasurers of Athene. Any surplus remaining after repay- 
ment is to be spent upon walls and docks, 

The second part of the inscription is a decree passed 
somewhat later, which presupposes that the order has been 
given for the payment of the debt to the other deities men- 
tioned above. Certain moneys belonging to Athené may 
be used in adorning the Acropolis, and repairing (or supply- 
ing) articles employed in processions. But not more than 
10,000 drachmae are to be spent on this account; and 
nothing at all for any other purpose without a previous 
vote of indemnity. The Hellenotamiae are to deposit the 
proceeds of the φόρος with the ταμίαι τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας. (We 
cannot be quite sure whether this refers to the whole of 
the φόρος, or only to the 4th paid to the Goddess; cp. 
p. xii. ff. infra.) When out of the two hundred talents 
set apart for the purpose the sum owing to the other deities 
is repaid, it is to be kept on the left of the ὀπισθόδομος, and 
the money of Athené on the right. Those portions of the 
sacred treasure which have not been weighed or counted 
are now to be counted in the presence of the officers of 
the four previous years who gave in their account from 
one Panathenaic festival to the next; they are to weigh 
such of them as are gold or silver, or silver plated with 
gold ... Here the words cease to be legible. 

There is no indication of a date in this inscription, ex- 
cept what can be gathered from the writing: σύν has taken 
the place of ξύν; the later shortened form of the dative 
plural, and also the longer form, both occur in it (ταμίαις as 
well as ταμίασι), the shortened dative implying a year in or 
after Ol. 90 (420-417). It is beautifully written on two 
sides of a stone slab, and was once the table of an altar. 
Boeckh places it in the year b.c. 418. 

. This inscription has been made the subject af an elabo- 
rate discussion by Kirchhoff (Urkunden der Schatzmeister 
der ‘anderen Gotter,, Abhand]. der Berl. Acad. 1864, pp. 
8-28, Athenischer Staatschatz, pp. 21 ff., 43 ff., Berl. Acad. 
1876), who refers it to a time before the Peloponnesian War, 
and draws various inferences from it. The precise year to 


INSCRIPTIONS. lv 


which he assigns the inscription is the first of the Pana- 
thenaic period, Ol. 86. 3-87. 2 (434-431), or the last year 
of the preceding period, when the accounts of the treasure 
were made up, and when changes in the regulation of it 
would most naturally take place. He arrives at this con- 
clusion on grounds which will be hereafter examined. To 
reconcile this date with the character of the writing he has 
recourse to the supposition that, while the substance of the 
document belongs to the year 434, it was not written down 
until after 420. Here are two improbabilities: (1) that a 
decree of the senate and people should not have been en- 
graven during fifteen years ; and (2) that it should have been 
engraven at the end of the fifteen years. Such an hypo- 
thesis would only be justified on the ground that there was 
no later date to which the inscription could be assigned, 
as in the case of C.I. A. 283; or on such palaeographical 
grounds as determine the date of C. I. A.8.93. But in the 
present case there is no necessity for any such hypothesis. 
The Athenians would have been quite as well able to re- 
pay a large sum to the Goddess between B.C. 421 and 415, 
after a few years of peace, as before the commencement 
of the war. Kirchhoff, having fixed the date of the in- 
scription on other grounds, connects the payment of the 
3000 talents with the possession of 9700 talents by the 
Athenians shortly before the war (Thuc. ii. 13 med.), and 
with the indemnity which they exacted from the Samians 
after the suppression of the revolt. It is quite true that the 
Athenians must have been rich when they transferred so 
large a sum from one account to another. But they had 
recovered their wealth before the Syracusan expedition. 
Kirchhoff argues that some words at the end of the 
inscription, in which provision is made for numbering and 
weighing some of the sacred treasures at that particular 
time (νῦν), are a decree then for the first time establishing 
the inventories of the sacred articles of the temple, which 
commence in 434 and continue in a more or less frag- 
mentary form down to the taking of the city (C. I. A. 117- 
173). Thus he imagines himself to obtain an accurate 


lvi THUCYDIDES. 


determination of the date. But in reply it may be observed, 
(1) that the words of the inscription (32), τῶν χρημάτων τῶν 
ἱερῶν, seem to refer generally to the treasures of the Goddess 
and of the other deities, and not merely to the silver plate 
and other ornaments enumerated in the inventories, though 
these are included in it: (2) that a provision is made in it 
for a weighing of the treasures. But several of the articles 
mentioned in the inventories were and continued to be 
unweighed. This secms to prove that the inscription has 
to do, not with the inventories, but with some other and 
more careful register of part of the sacred treasure: (3) 
the direction that only such of the treasures as are un- 
weighed and uncounted are to be weighed would imply 
that there had been previous inventories. But if so, the 
custom of having an inventory was not then established for 
the first time: (4) that the inscription appears to speak of 
a single occasion only, and not of the establishment of an 
annual audit. It relates to the money paid in at that time, 
and to the plate, which is to be weighed and numbered 
in the presence of the magistrates who are in the habit 
of accounting for it from time to time—dépyai at édid0[ cap 
det τὸν λόγον ἐκ Παν]αθηναίων és Ma[rabyv aca (cp. Ὁ. I. A. 
117.1. 1): (5) the money of Athené and the other deities 
mentioned in the words just preceding is kept in the dme- 
σθόδομος ; why should we suppose a sudden transition to the 
treasures of the inventories which were kept in other parts 
of the temple? Lastly, the fragmentary state of the con- 
cluding lines of the text renders it perilous to draw in- 
ferences from it, such as are drawn by Kirchhoff respecting 
the relation which the inscription bears to the inventories. 
The whole argument rests on one of those apparent coin- 
cidences which but for the slenderness of our materials 
would never have been observed, and when examined more 
closely turns out not to be a coincidence at all. 

More weight is due to the argument in favour of the 
earlier date derived from C. I. A. 194, in which ταμίαι τῶν 
ἄλλων θεῶν are mentioned as already existing [ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αμεί]- 
vovos ἄρχοντος, in the year 429, that is if we could be sure 


INSCRIPTIONS, lvii 


that they were first established by the decree contained in 
C. I. A. 32. But though there appears to be a special 
appointment of ταμίαι in this inscription, the wording of it 
(παρὰ δὲ τῶν νῦν ταμιῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπιστατῶν καὶ τῶν ἱεροποιῶν 
τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ot νῦν διαχειρίζουσι, κ. τ. λ.), and indeed the 
very fact of nearly 200 talents having been borrowed, in- 
dicate that such ταμίαι were already in existence. And 
these may be referred to in C. I. A. 194 as ταμίαι τῶν 
ἄλλων θεῶν. However this may be, the argument is hardly 
sufhcient to counterbalance the indications given by the 
writing. The utmost that can be conceded is that the 
earlier date (Kirchhoff) is as likely as the later (Boeckh). 

The sum of 3000 talents repaid to the Goddess is sup- 
posed by Kirchhoff to be part of the great Athenian 
treasure which at some time, not exactly known to us, 
before the Peloponnesian War had amounted to 9700 
talents (Thuc. ii. 13 med.). ‘From this had to be deducted 
a sum of 3700 expended on various buildings, such as the 
Propylaea of the Acropolis, and also on the siege of Poti- 
ἄδεια. Of the 6000 talents which remained at the com- 
mencement of the war 1000 were set apart as a: reserve, 
and not touched until after the failure of the Syracusan 
expedition in 413. The remaining 5000 might be used in 
the service of the state. 

Now in Thucydides, iii. 19, three and a-half years after 
the commencement of the war, towards the end of 428 B.c., 
the Athenians are said to have sent out twelve ships to 
collect tribute among their allies in Lycia and Caria; at the 
same time, or rather sooner, they imposed upon themselves 
a property tax of 200 talents. The two measures, accord- 
ing to Kirchhoff, Athenischer Staatschatz, p. 26 ff., show 
that they were in pecuniary distress. Before they would 
have submitted to tax themselves they must have exhausted 
their whole treasure. This is the keystone of the argument : 
‘If there had been anything left they would never have sent 
out an extraordinary expedition to exact money, or have 
raised out of their own incomes, for the first time in the 
war, two hundred talents.’ Hence it is inferred that during 

VOL. II. e 


viii THUCYDIDES. 


the first three years of the war the whole of their reserve 
fund must have been expended. 


If we add to the . 5000 talents 
the annual increment of ‘the sacred 
treasure, calculated at 200 talents 


(see infra, p. xix) . όοο ., 
tribute for three years, 600 talents . 1800 __s—7, 
the whole sum spent in three years 

is . . . . . . 7400 , 
orannually . . . . . 24663 ,, 


Leaving at this point the thread of the argument, to 
which we will return, we may illustrate the general character 
of Athenian expenditure by a few easy calculations :— 

(1) A fleet of 100 vessels, carrying each the ordinary crew 
of 200 men, or 20,000 in all, could not have been main- 
tained in the early part of the war, when the sailors’ wages 
were high, viz. a drachma a day, at a less cost than 100 
talents a month, besides the payments to officers and 
marines, and the cost of the hull supplied by the state. 

(2) The heavy-armed soldiers who served in the siege of 
Potidaea received each man for himself and an attendant 
two drachmae a day (iii. 17). They numbered in the first 
expedition 3000 men, in the second 1600, who remained for 
only a part of the two years for which the siege lasted. 
Therefore under this single head an expenditure must have 
been incurred of more than a talent and a-half a day, or at 
the rate of 552 talents a year. Thucydides expressly says 
that the siege cost two thousand talents (ii. 70). 

(3) The building of the Propylaea is said by Heliodorus 
to have cost 2012 talents (Harpocration, s. v. p. 159). 

(4) The six thousand jurymen of the court of Heliaea, if 
sitting at one time, would have received half a talent a day 
(the pay of each singly being 3 obols), or if sitting for a 
month, fifteen talents. Or, as Aristophanes (Wasps, 663) 
calculates the expense of 6000 jurymen for the year,— 


γίγνεται ἡμῖν ἑκατὸν δήπου καὶ πεντήκοντα τάλαντα. 


INSCRIPTIONS. lix 


(5) The 20,000 citizens of Athens, if they had all attended 
at any one assembly, would have received (after the change 
of the pay, at some time unknown, from one to three obols) 
fees amounting to ten talents: but as more than 5000 were 
not present upon ordinary occasions (cp. Thuc. viii. 72), 
we may reduce this charge to a fourth, or to 2} talents. 
Supposing there were fifty sittings in a year (cp. Boeckh, 
Staatshaush. i. p. 326), the total expenditure under this head 
would amount to 125 talents. 

(6) The total pay of 500 senators at a drachma a day, 
sitting 300 days in the year, would amount to 25 talents. 

Such estimates give a general idea of the scale of Athenian _ 
expenditure. They may also remind us that both on the 
creditor and debtor side of the account should be entered 
many elements of revenue and expenditure which can no 
longer be estimated. 

We may now return to the calculation of Kirchhoff. It 
turns, as we have already seen, upon Thucydides ili. 19, a 
passage in which the Athenians are described as sending 
ships to Asia Minor for the collection of tribute, having 
already raised a self-imposed tax of 200 talents among 
themselves. Now he infers that they would not have taken 
extraordinary means of raising money until their ordinary 
resources were exhausted. Yet surely (1) a people, like an 
individual, may become alarmed at its financial condition 
long before its capital entirely comes to an end, and having 
great dangers to face, may take extraordinary measures to 
meet financial difficulties before the exchequer has been 
emptied. (2) Such expeditions were sent, not once only, 
but many times in the course of the war, and even before 
this time (Thuc. ii. 69, cp. also iv. 50, 75), to collect money 
from cities which were in arrears or which did not regu- 
larly pay tribute, or to exact an extraordinary tribute from 
those which did. But (3) if so, the argument for the great 
expenditure of the first three years of the war falls to the 
ground. If there is no reason to assume that the Athenians 
were in extreme necessity when they sent out the squadron, 
neither is there any need to infer that they had spent at the 

6 2 


ἵν}: THUCYDIDES. 


the first three years of the war the whole of their reserve 
fund must have been expended. 


If we add to the . 5000 talents 
the annual increment of ‘the sacred 
treasure, calculated at 200 talents 


(see infra, p. xix) . όοο ,, 
tribute for three years, 600 talents . 1800 __sé—7 
the whole sum spent in three years 

iS . . . . . . 7400 ,, 
or annually . . . . . 24664 ,, 


Leaving at this point the thread of the argument, to 
which we will return, we may illustrate the general character 
of Athenian expenditure by a few easy calculations :— 

(1) A fleet of 100 vessels, carrying each the ordinary crew 
of 200 men, or 20,000 in all, could not have been main- 
tained in the early part of the war, when the sailors’ wages - 
were high, viz. a drachma a day, at a less cost than 100 
talents a month, besides the payments to officers and 
marines, and the cost of the hull supplied by the state. 

(2) The heavy-armed soldiers who served in the siege of 
Potidaea received each man for himself and an attendant 
two drachmae a day (iii. 17). They numbered in the first 
expedition 3000 men, in the second 1600, who remained for 
only a part of the two years for which the siege lasted. 
Therefore under this single head an expenditure must have 
been incurred of more than a talent and a-half a day, or at 
the rate of 552 talents a year. Thucydides expressly says 
that the siege cost two thousand talents (ii. 70). 

(3) The building of the Propylaea is said by Heliodorus 
to have cost 2012 talents (Harpocration, s. v. p. 159). 

(4) The six thousand jurymen of the court of Heliaea, if 
sitting at one time, would have received half a talent a day 
(the pay of each singly being 3 obols), or if sitting for a 
month, fifteen talents. Or, as Aristophanes (Wasps, 663) 
calculates the expense of 6000 jurymen for the year,— 


γίγνεται ἡμῖν ἑκατὸν δήπου καὶ πεντήκοντα τάλαντα. 


INSCRIPTIONS. — lix 


(5) The 20,000 citizens of Athens, if they had all attended 
at any one assembly, would have received (after the change 
of the pay, at some time unknown, from one to three obols) 
fees amounting to ten talents: but as more than 5000 were 
not present upon ordinary occasions (cp. Thuc. viii. 72), 
we may reduce this charge to a fourth, or to 24 talents. 
Supposing there were fifty sittings in a year (cp. Boeckh, 
Staatshaush. i. p. 326), the total expenditure under this head 
would amount to 125 talents. | 

(6) The total pay of 500 senators at a drachma a day, 
sitting 300 days in the year, would amount to 25 talents. 

Such estimates give a general idea of the scale of Athenian © 
expenditure. They may also remind us that both on the 
creditor and debtor side of the account should be entered 
many elements of revenue and expenditure which can no 
longer be estimated. 

We may now return to the calculation of Kirchhoff. It 
turns, as we have already seen, upon Thucydides iii. 19, a 
passage in which the Athenians are described as sending 
ships to Asia Minor for the collection of tribute, having 
already raised a self-imposed tax of 200 talents among 
themselves. Now he infers that they would not have taken 
extraordinary means of raising money until their ordinary 
resources were exhausted. Yet surely (1) a people, like an 
individual, may become alarmed at its financial condition 
long before its capital entirely comes to an end, and having 
great dangers to face, may take extraordinary measures to 
meet financial difficulties before the exchequer has been 
emptied. (2) Such expeditions were sent, not once only, 
but many times in the course of the war, and even before 
this time (Thuc. ii. 69, cp. also iv. 50, 75), to collect money 
from cities which were in arrears or which did not regu- 
larly pay tribute, or to exact an extraordinary tribute from 
those which did. But (3) if so, the argument for the great 
expenditure of the first three years of the war falls to the 
ground. If there is no reason to assume that the Athenians 
were in extreme necessity when they sent out the squadron, 
neither is there any need to infer that they had spent at the 

6 2 


] THUCYDIDES. 


nearly the whole of the Peloponnesian War, the account 
of the treasure of the Parthenon lasting, with gaps, up 
to 411; that of the Pronaos up to 407; that of the Heca- 
tompedon to 405 or 404. 

Pericles, in estimating the resources of the Athenians, in- 
cludes among their treasures (ii. 13) ‘ uncoined gold and silver 
‘in the form of private and public offerings, sacred vessels 
‘used in processions and games, the Persian spoil, and other 
‘things of the like nature, worth at least five hundred talents 
‘more. There were also at their disposal, besides what they 
‘had in the Acropolis, considerable treasures in various 
‘temples. If they were reduced to the last extremity, they 
‘could even take off the plates of gold with which the image 
‘of the Goddess was overlaid: these, as he pointed out, 
‘weighed forty talents, and were of refined gold, which was 
‘all removable. They might use the gold taken from the 
‘Goddess in self-defence, but they were bound to replace 
‘all that they had taken.’ 

These inventories are for the most part repetitions of 
each other. Each of them, except the last inventory of the 
treasures of the Pronaos (see below), is headed by a regular 
form of words, e.g. ‘These things the stewards of the sacred 
‘treasure of Athené, Eurectes of Atené and his colleagues, 
‘to whom Apollodorus the son of Critias of Aphidnae was 
‘registrar, handed over to the stewards to whom Diognis 
‘the son of Isander of the Piraeus was registrar; having 
‘received them from the previous stewards to whom Euthias 
‘son of Aeschron of Anaphlystus was registrar.’ 

‘In the Pronaos.’ (C. I. A. 119.) 

Then follow the actual inventories. 

In the first year however of each Panathenaic period 
the treasures are said to be handed over to the stewards 
of the year by ‘ the officers of the four preceding years, who 
gave in their accounts from one Panathenaea to the next.’ 

During the twenty or thirty years over which the lists 
extend they gradually increase in length (in the language 
of the inscriptions, ἐπέτεια éeyévero—‘ these are additions of 
the year’) until the final collapse. They are silent witnesses 


Re EE: ei ππρθα-α “αὶ παν ας 


INSCRIPTIONS. li 


to the growth, decline, and fall of the first Athenian empire, 
the last record of the treasures of the Hecatompedon ap- 
pearing in a fragment which is assigned on palaeographical 
and other grounds to 405 or 404 B.C. The inventories re- 
appear a few years later, though the form of them is different. 
The treasures consisted of gold and silver plate, bowls, 
cups, crowns, horns, couches, tables, chairs, censers, baskets, 
of gilded and golden as well as of silver and plated articles, 
and of arms. We find among them a gilded lyre, four ivory 
lyres, a flute case, a ‘figure of a girl upon a pillar,’ a ‘horse, 
a griffin, the face (or forepart) of a griffin, a griffin, the head 
of a lion, a necklace (or wreath) of flowers, a dragon; all 
overlaid with gold.’ The entire value of them, as far as can 
be estimated by their weight, is not great, probably not ex- 
ceeding at the beginning of the war ten to twenty talents, 
to which must be added a moderate sum for the workman- 
ship'. A sample of the character of these treasures will 
be given by the last inventory of the articles contained in 
the Πρόναος, Ol. 93. 2, 407-406 B.C. If we can trust a very 
conjectural restoration, which however derives some sup- 
port from the exceptional character of this last inscription, 
they are recorded at the end of it to have been handed 
over to the Hellenotamiae, i.e. devoted to the purposes of 
the war, in the following year, Ol. 93. 3. The Athenians 
however do not appear to have availed themselves to any 
considerable extent, if at all, during the time which the 
lists severally cover, of the resource hinted at by Pericles. 
This inventory is as follows :— 


121 silver bowls. . . weighing 2 tal. 432 drachmae. 
3 silver horns . » 528 » 
5 silvercups . . . ” 167 » 
1 5ἰΐνεσ ἰατῶὼρ. . . » 38 » 
7 silver bowls ” 700 » 
1 golden crown (in a round ‘case) » 33 » 3 obols. 
2silver bowls. . . » 200 


1 It would thus appear that the articles enumerated in these records form but 
a small part of what may be termed the miscellaneous treasures of the Athe- 
nians, which are estimated by Thucydides at 500 talents. These, however, 
include the whole mass of uncoined gold and silver, as well as many articles of 
value unweighed. 


lii THUCYDIDES. 


4 silver bowls. . . weighing 329 drachmae. 
1 silver Chalcidian cup . » 40 ” 

7 silver bowls . . . ” 920 » ᾿ 
I silver cup . . . ” 40 » 

4 silver bowls. . . ” 420 ” 

7 silver bowls. . . ” 643 ” 2 obols, 
3 silver bowls. . . ” 251 » 

1 silver cup . . . » 66 ” 
Isilverlamp . . . ” 22 ” 

3 silver vessels. . . ” 294 ” 

§ silver vessels. . . ” 413 » 

1 silver vessel. . . ” 112 » 

I silver cup . . . ” 47 9 

1 silver vessel. . . ” 60 ” 

I silver cup . . . " 39 ” 

1 silver vessel. . . ” 153 ” 

1 silver cup . . . » 30 » 

4 silver vessels. . . "» 386 » 

1 silver vessel. . . ” 194 ,» 

4 Silver vessels. . . ” 788 ” 

3 silver vessels. . . » 718 ” 

1 silver vessel. . . weight wanting. 


Add for the difference between the value of 3 2063. ,, 
gold and silver, estimated at ro to 1, in 301 ” 


the case of the golden crown... -— τ 
3 2365s, 


w | won i 
“ 
Ἕ 


a? 


C.I.A. 194-225 are a very fragmentary series of the 
accounts of the ‘ other deities,’ in which the names occur of 
Hephaestus, Poseidon “Immos, and Poseidon of Sunium, 
Heré, Dionysus, the Mother of the Gods, Zeus, Artemis 
Ἑκάτη, and Artemis ’Ayporépa, Apollo, and some Attic 
heroes (cp. C.I.A. 273). As to the amount or character of 
the treasure little can be made out: a ‘tenth from the sale 
of captives,’ [δ]εκάτη ἀνδραπόδων, is dedicated to Artemis 
*Ayporépa. That the series begins before 429 is proved by 
words which occur in one of the inscriptions (194) :— 


[ἐπὶ ᾿Επαμεί] 
νονος ἄρχοντος, ᾿ (B.C. 429) 


and— 
τάδε παρέδ[οσαν παραδεξάμενοι] 


παρὰ τῶν π|ροτέρων ταμιῶν]. 


It may be worth observing (cp. Newton and Hicks, p. 47) 


INSCRIPTIONS. iii 


that the words τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν προσετίθει χρήματα οὐκ 
ὀλίγα are not necessarily connected with τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν in 
the expression ταμίαι τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν. For Thucydides is 
speaking of temples ‘other than those on the Acropolis,’ or 
‘other than the Parthenon.’ (That there were temples on 
the Acropolis besides those of Athené is clear from ii. 15, 
τὰ yap ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί) But 
the treasures of the other deities were certainly at a later 
date, and perhaps at the beginning of the war (C.I.A. 32) 
kept on the Acropolis and in the Parthenon. 

I. iv. We will now pass to the inscriptions relating to the 
payment of debts to the temples and the expenditure of 
public money. Among them one of the most important is 
C.I.A. 32, a decree of the senate and people which, after 
mentioning the repayment of 3000 talents to the Goddess, 
provides for a further repayment to the other deities out of 
certain funds which had been already set apart for this 
purpose by a vote of the assembly. Part of these were 
in the hands of the Hellenotamiae, another part was to 
be obtained from a tithe of the produce of land or spoils (?) 
when let out or sold (?), ra ἐκ τῆς δεκάτης ἐπειδὰν πραθῇ. 
The thirty λογισταί, or accountants, now in office are to 
calculate exactly what is due to the deities: these officers 
are to be called together at the discretion of the senate. 
(The τριάκοντα mentioned in the heading of the first and 
third quota lists are probably identical with the λογισταί, 
see Kohler, p. 106.) When the money is paid back, all 
records of the debt are to be searched for and cancelled. 
The sum thus repaid is to be placed in the hands of 
ταμίαι. These are to be elected at the same time as the 
other magistrates, and in the same manner as the ταμίαι 
of the treasures of Athené. They are to receive the 
money of the other deities from other ταμίαι, émoraral, and 
ἱεροποιοί of different temples who are at present in charge 
of it, and to deposit it in the Opisthodomus of the Par- 
thenon. They are to register the amount belonging to 
each deity and to all collectively, and to keep an annual 
account from one Panathenaic festival to another, like the 


liv THUCYDIDES. 


treasurers of Athené. Any surplus remaining after repay- 
ment is to be spent upon walls and docks. 

The second part of the inscription is a decree passed 
somewhat later, which presupposes that the order has been 
given for the payment of the debt to the other deities men- 
tioned above. Certain moneys belonging to Athene may 
be used in adorning the Acropolis, and repairing (or supply- 
ing) articles employed in processions. But not more than 
10,000 drachmae are to be spent on this account; and 
nothing at all for any other purpose without a previous 
vote of indemnity. The Hellenotamiae are to deposit the 
proceeds of the φόρος with the ταμίαι τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας. (We 
cannot be quite sure whether this refers to the whole of 
the φόρος, or only to the 4th paid to the Goddess; cp. — 
p. lxii. ff. infra.) When out of the two hundred talents 
set apart for the purpose the sum owing to the other deities 
is repaid, it is to be kept on the left of the ὀπισθόδομος, and 
the money of Athené on the right. Those portions of the 
sacred treasure which have not been weighed or counted 
are now to be counted in the presence of the officers of 
the four previous years who gave in their account from 
one Panathenaic festival to the next; they are to weigh 
such of them as are gold or silver, or silver plated with 
gold ... Here the words cease to be legible. 

There is no indication of a date in this inscription, ex- 
cept what can be gathered from the writing: σύν has taken 
the place of ξύν; the later shortened form of the dative 
plural, and also the longer form, both occur in it (ταμίαις as 
well as ταμίασι), the shortened dative implying a year in or 
after Ol. go (420-417). It is beautifully written on two 
sides of a stone slab, and was once the table of an altar. 
Boeckh places it in the year bB.c. 418. 

This inscription has been made the subject af an elabo- 
rate discussion by Kirchhoff (Urkunden der Schatzmeister 
der ‘anderen Gotter,’ Abhandl. der Berl. Acad. 1864, pp. 
8-28, Athenischer Staatschatz, pp. 21 ff., 43 ff., Berl. Acad. 
1876), who refers it to a time before the Peloponnesian War, 
and draws various inferences from it. The precise year to 


INSCRIPTIONS. lv 


which he assigns the inscription is the first of the Pana- 
themaic period, Ol. 86. 3-87. 2 (434-431), or the last year 
of the preceding period, when the accounts of the treasure 
wWe¢re made up, and when changes in the regulation of it 
WOnald most naturally take place. He arrives at this con- 
Clu sion on grounds which will be hereafter examined. To 
*€Concile this date with the character of the writing he has 
¥€Course to the supposition that, while the substance of the 
Accument belongs to the year 434, it was not written down 
ΔΤ] after 420. Here are two improbabilities: (1) that a 
decree of the senate and people should not have been en- 
Graven during fifteen years ; and (2) that it should have been 
engraven at the end of the fifteen years. Such an hypo- 
thesis would only be justified on the ground that there was 
no later date to which the inscription could be assigned, 
as in the case of C.I. A. 283; or on such palaeographical 
grounds as determine the date of C. I. A. 8.93. But in the 
present case there is no necessity for any such hypothesis. 
The Athenians would have been quite as well able to re- 
pay a large sum to the Goddess between B.C. 421 and 415, 
after a few years of peace, as before the commencement 
of the war. Kirchhoff, having fixed the date of the in- 
scription on other grounds, connects the payment of the 
3000 talents with the possession of 9700 talents by the 
Athenians shortly before the war (Thuc. ii. 13 med.), and 
with the indemnity which they exacted from the Samians 
after the suppression of the revolt. It is quite true that the 
Athenians must have been rich when they transferred so 
large a sum from one account to another. But they had 
recovered their wealth before the Syracusan expedition. 
Kirchhoff argues that some words at the end of the 
inscription, in which provision is made for numbering and 
weighing some of the sacred treasures at that particular 
time (νῦν), are a decree then for the first time establishing 
the inventories of the sacred articles of the temple, which 
commence in 434 and continue in a more or less frag- 
mentary form down to the taking of the city (C. I. A. 117— 
173). Thus he imagines himself to obtain an accurate 


Ivi THUCYDIDES, 


determination of the date. But in reply it may be observe" 
( 1) that the words of the inscription (32), τῶν χρημάτων i 
ἱερῶν, seem to refer generally to the treasures of the Godde= = 
and of the other deities, and not merely to the silver pla -_ 
and other ornaments enumerated in the inventories, thoug” —_ - “ 
these are included in it: (2) that a provision is made in 225, = ᾿ 
for a weighing of the treasures. But several of the article 955 ᾿ 
mentioned in the inventories were and continued to be= ~~ _ 
unweighed. This seems to prove that the inscription hass 
to do, not with the inventories, but with some other and 
more careful register of part of the sacred treasure: (3) 
the direction that only such of the treasures as are un- 
weighed and uncounted are to be weighed would imply 
that there had been previous inventories. But if so, the 
custom of having an inventory was not then established for 
the first time: (4) that the inscription appears to speak of 
a single occasion only, and not of the establishment of an 
annual audit. It relates to the money paid in at that time, 
and to the plate, which is to be weighed and numbered 
in the presence of the magistrates who are in the habit 
of accounting for it from time to time—dpyai at ἐδίδο[ σαν 
ἀεὶ τὸν ne ἐκ Παν]αθηναίων ἐς Πα[ναθήν]αια (cp. C. 1. A. 
117. 1. 1): (5) the money of Athené and the other deities 
mentioned in the words just preceding is kept in the ém- 
σθόδομος ; why should we suppose a sudden transition to the 
treasures of the inventorics which were kept in other parts 
of the temple? Lastly, the fragmentary state of the con- 
cluding lines of the text renders it perilous to draw in- 
ferences from it, such as are drawn by Kirchhoff respecting 
the relation which the inscription bears to the inventories. 
The whole argument rests on one of those apparent coin- 
cidences which but for the slenderness of our materials 
would never have been observed, and when examined more 
closely turns out not to be a coincidence at all. 

More weight is due to the argument in favour of the 
earlicr date derived from C. I. A. 194, in which ταμίαι τῶν 
ἄλλων θεῶν are mentioned as already cxisting [ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αμεί]- 
vovos ἄρχοντος, in the ycar 429, that is if we could be sure 


INSCRIPTIONS. lvii 


that they were first established by the decree contained in 
C. I. A. 32. But though there appears to be a special 
appointment of ταμίαι in this inscription, the wording of it 
(παρὰ δὲ τῶν νῦν ταμιῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπιστατῶν καὶ τῶν ἱεροποιῶν 
τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ot νῦν διαχειρίζουσι, κ. τ. λ.), and indeed the 
very fact of nearly 200 talents having been borrowed, in- 
dicate that such ταμίαι were already in existence. And 
these may be referred to in C. 1. A. 194 as ταμίαι τῶν 
ἄλλων θεῶν. However this may be, the argument is hardly 
sufficient to counterbalance the indications given by the 
writing. The utmost that can be conceded is that the 
earlier date (Kirchhoff) is as likely as the later (Boeckh). 

The sum of 3000 talents repaid to the Goddess is sup- 
posed by Kirchhoff to be part of the great Athenian 
treasure which at some time, not exactly known to us, 
before the Peloponnesian War had amounted to 9700 
talents (Thuc. ii. 13 med.). ‘From this had to be deducted 
a sum of 3700 expended on various buildings, such as the 
Propylaea of ‘the Acropolis, and also on the siege of Poti- 
daea. Of the 6000 talents which remained at the com- 
mencement of the war 1000 were set apart as a: reserve, 
and not touched until after the failure of the Syracusan 
expedition in 413. The remaining 5000 might be used in 
the service of the state. 

Now in Thucydides, iii. 19, three and a-half years after 
the commencement of the war, towards the end of 428 B.c., 
the Athenians are said to have sent out twelve ships to 
collect tribute among their allies in Lycia and Caria; at the 
same time, or rather sooner, they imposed upon themselves 
a property tax of 200 talents. The two measures, accord- 
ing to Kirchhoff, Athenischer Staatschatz, p. 26 ff., show 
that they were in pecuniary distress. Before they would 
have submitted to tax themselves they must have exhausted 
their whole treasure. This is the keystone of the argument: 
‘If there had been anything left they would never have sent 
out an extraordinary expedition to exact money, or have 
raised out of their own incomes, for the first time in the 
war, two hundred talents.’ Hence it is inferred that during 

VOL. II. e 


viii THUCYDIDES. 


the first three years of the war the whole of their reserve 
fund must have been expended. 


If we add to the . . 5000 talents 
the annual increment of ‘the sacred 
treasure, calculated at 200 talents 


(see infra, Ὁ. lxix) . 600, 
tribute for three years, 600 talents . 1800 __s—="» 
the whole sum spent in three years 

is . . . . . . 7400 ,, 
or annually. . . . . 2466 ,, 


Leaving at this point the thread of the argument, to 
which we will return, we may illustrate the general character 
of Athenian expenditure by a few easy calculations :-— 

(1) A fleet of 100 vessels, carrying each the ordinary crew 
of 200 men, or 20,000 in all, could not have been main- 
tained in the early part of the war, when the sailors’ wages ᾿ 
were high, viz. a drachma a day, at a less cost than 100 
talents a month, besides the payments to officers and 
marines, and the cost of the hull supplied by the state. 

(2) The heavy-armed soldiers who served in the siege of 
Potidaea received each man for himself and an attendant 
two drachmae a day (iii. 17). They numbered in the first 
expedition 3000 men, in the second 1600, who remained for 
only a part of the two years for which the siege lasted. 
Therefore under this single head an expenditure must have 
been incurred of more than a talent and a-half a day, or at 
the rate of 552 talents a year. Thucydides expressly says 
that the siege cost two thousand talents (ii. 70). 

(3) The building of the Propylaea is said by Heliodorus 
to have cost 2012 talents (Harpocration, s. v. p. 159). 

(4) The six thousand jurymen of the court of Heliaea, if 
sitting at one time, would have received half a talent a day 
(the pay of each singly being 3 obols), or if sitting for a 
month, fifteen talents. Or, as Aristophanes (Wasps, 663) 
calculates the expense of 6000 jurymen for the year,— 


γίγνεται ἡμῖν ἑκατὸν δήπου καὶ πεντήκοντα τάλαντα. 


INSCRIPTIONS. lix 


(5) The 20,000 citizens of Athens, if they had all attended 
at any one assembly, would have received (after the change 
of the pay, at some time unknown, from one to three obols) 
fees amounting to ten talents: but as more than 5000 were 
not present upon ordinary occasions (cp. Thuc. viii. 72), 
we may reduce this charge to a fourth, or to 2} talents. 
Supposing there were fifty sittings in a year (cp. Boeckh, 
Staatshaush. i. p. 326), the total expenditure under this head 
would amount to 125 talents. 

(6) The total pay of 500 senators at a drachma a day, 
sitting 300 days in the year, would amount to 25 talents. 

Such estimates give a general idea of the scale of Athenian © 
expenditure. They may also remind us that both on the 
creditor and debtor side of the account should be entered 
many elements of revenue and expenditure which can no 
longer be estimated. 

We may now return to the calculation of Kirchhoff. It 
turns, as we have already seen, upon Thucydides iii. 19, a 
passage in which the Athenians are described as sending 
ships to Asia Minor for the collection of tribute, having 
already raised a self-imposed tax of 200 talents among 
themselves. Now he infers that they would not have taken 
extraordinary means of raising money until their ordinary 
resources were exhausted. Yet surely (1) a people, like an 
individual, may become alarmed at its financial condition 
long before its capital entirely comes to an end, and having 
great dangers to face, may take extraordinary measures to 
meet financial difficulties before the exchequer has been 
emptied. (2) Such expeditions were sent, not once only, 
but many times in the course of the war, and even before 
this time (Thuc. ii. 69, cp. also iv. 50, 75), to collect money 
from cities which were in arrears or which did not regu- 
larly pay tribute, or to exact an extraordinary tribute from 
those which did. But (3) if so, the argument for the great 
expenditure of the first three years of the war falls to the 
ground. If there is no reason to assume that the Athenians 
were in extreme necessity when they sent out the squadron, 
neither is there any need to infer that they had spent at the 

€ 2 


Ix THUCYDIDES, 


rate of 24664 talents a year during the first three years of the 
Peloponnesian War. (4) The mere imposition of a property 
tax is far from proving any extreme necessity. It is a tax 
very likely to be imposed at all times by the growing power 
of a democracy on the rich, οἵπερ καὶ ταλαιπωροῦνται μάλιστα 
(viii. 48 init.; Aristoph. Knights, 923 ff.). (5) Kirchhoff is 
surely mistaken in supposing that the words of Thucydides, 
iii. 17, καὶ τὰ χρήματα τοῦτο μάλιστα ὑπανάλωσε μετὰ Ποτιδαίας, 
imply that the reserve was exhausted. They might indeed 
have had this meaning if any statement of such exhaustion 
had been previously made. But as they stand they mean 
no more than ‘this was the great drain upon the Athenian 
resources. Again (6), supposing the Athenians to have 
used up their capital during the first three years of the war, 
itis hard to see how they supported the equal if not greater 
strain of the seven years which followed. Can we suppose 
that a prudent people would have depended merely upon 
the chance sums which were brought in from time to time 
by the exactions of ἀργυρολόγοι vies? Whether the tribute 
was doubled in the year 425 or not, it is evident that the 
Athenians after a few years of peace enjoyed a plethora of 
wealth; cp. Thuc. vi. 26, Andoc. de Pace, (iii) 8. 9, διὰ 
ταύτην τὴν εἰρήνην ἑπτακισχίλια τάλαντα νομίσματος els τὴν 
ἀκρόπολιν ἀνηνέγκαμεν. But would they in five or six years 
have risen to wealth from absolute bankruptcy, which must 
have been their state if during five or six years of war 
their treasury had been empty? 

Neither the notices of Thucydides nor any inscription 
hitherto found enable us to form a certain estimate of the 
total revenue or expenditure of Athens in any given year 
of the Peloponnesian War. We are at a loss to reconcile 
the words of Aristophanes, who (Wasps, 660) roughly esti- 
mates the income of Athens at 2000 talents,— 


τούτων πλήρωμα τάλαντ᾽ ἐγγὺς δισχίλια γίγνεται ἡμῖν, ---- 


with Xenophon’s statement (Anab. vii. 1. 27) that at the be- 
ginning of the Peloponnesian War the Athenians had not 
less than 1000 talents coming in yearly. We cannot de- 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixi 


termine how far civil as well as military expenditure was 
defrayed from the treasures of the temples, or how far 
extraordinary expenses were defrayed out of ordinary 
resources: we do not know what was received from mines, 
public lands, law fees, harbours, confiscations ; how far the 
tribute may have risen above or fallen below 600 talents ; or 
how much was brought in by ἀργυρολόγοι νῆες. Neither do 
we know what was spent on temples and other public 
buildings, on theatrical performances, sacred missions and 
festivals, on hulls of ships, siege engines, and other muni- 
tions of war, on food for soldiers and sailors, and the like. 
We cannot therefore attempt to Balance the accounts of the 
Athenian empire. 

But Kirchhoff is quite right in supposing that there 
was a very large expenditure of capital in the first few 
years of the war, larger, as we gather from C.I.A. 273, than 
in the years which followed. 

This important inscription, bearing.on the preceding as 
well as on the following discussion, may here be con- 
veniently introduced. It contains an account, apparently 
drawn up by the λογισταί, of money paid out for the public 
service at different times from the treasuries of Athene 
Polias, Athené Nike, and of the other deities. The account 
is divided into two parts, one extending from ΟἹ. 86.4 to 88.2 
(433 to 427 B.C.) inclusive, the second from 88.3 to 89.2 (426 
to 423 B.C.) inclusive. The total of the money borrowed dur- 
ing the first seven years from all these treasuries amounts to 
about 4729 talents 2625 drachmae 2 obols, that borrowed 
during the last four years or wevrernpis from the treasury 
of Athené Polias—the amount borrowed from the other 
treasuries, though not great, is uncertain—to about 747 talents 
4178 drachmae, in all 5477 talents 803 drachmae 2 obols. 
Interest is charged on the whole of this sum; calculated, 
during the last four years, of which alone the accounts are 
preserved in detail, according to Boeckh, at the 3ooth part 
of a drachma for a mina per day, or at 1} per cent. for 
the year. 

It may be observed (1) that this inscription affords an 


Ixii THUCYDIDES. 


important evidence of the existence of a sacred fund which 
was also public (see infra). 

(2) If the 3000 talents mentioned in the last inscription 
(C.I.A. 32) were repaid in the year 418, as supposed by 
Boeckh, it may be conjectured that they were a repayment 
to the temple treasures of a part of the sums here set 
down as borrowed. Otherwise there is no indication that 
the interest was ever paid or the principal returned. 

(3) The inscription proves that the Athenian war ex- 
penditure was very far from being paid out of the income 
of the year; and that the sums borrowed were much 
larger, probably because tlfere was a larger fund from which 
to borrow, during the first seven years than during the 
four subsequent years of the period to which the inscrip- 
tion refers. The argument of Kirchhoff supposes that the 
treasury was exhausted in the year 428. But the inscrip- 
tion tends to show, though the fragmentary state of part of 
it makes any inference difficult, that the treasury held out 
at any rate until the middle of 426. And it should be ob- 
served that the 4729 talents form the expenditure, not only 
of the first five years of the war, but also of the two years 
which preceded it. 

A question which has been discussed by Boeckh, Staats- 
haush. i. pp. 221, 575 ff., naturally arises in connexion with 
this inscription: in what relation did the sacred treasure 
stand to the secular, or rather what made the distinction 
between them? The φόρος would naturally appear to be 
secular treasure; as the quota to the Goddess and the 
gold and silver plate contained in the inventories are sacred 
treasure. The first was under the control of the Helleno- 
tamiae, the second under that of the ταμίαι τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας 
and the ταμίαι τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν. But besides the quota and 
the articles of gold and silver plate, there were large sums 
of money kept in the temple which had a less strictly con- 
secrated character. These may be described as held in 
trust by the corporation: that is to say, they were also 
under the care of the ταμίαι τῆς θεοῦ, but they might be 
lent with the consent of the ecclesia in the service of the 


INSCRIPTIONS. I xiii 


state, whereas no such limitation was imposed as far as we 
know on the use of the φόρος or of other moneys in the 
hands of the Hellenotamiae. The repayment of 3000 
talents (C.I.A. 32) seems to confirm this view. For so large 
a sum cannot be supposed to have been the private property 
of the temple. Again, for the sums taken from the temple 
the state was in the habit, as we have seen, of professing 
to pay a small interest. But we have no record of interest 
claimed on any but sacred treasure. . 

The following extracts from inscriptions taken from 
Kirchhoff, p. 36 ff., indicate a difference between the func- 
tions of the Hellenotamiae and of the ταμίαι τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας, 
and therefore between a secular and a sacred treasury. 

C.I.A. 314, 315. The payments received by the ém- 
στάται or curators of the building of the Propylaea are 
divided at the end into three separate accounts: of the 
money received, (1) παρὰ τῶμ πρ[οτέρων ἐ]πιστατ[ῶν ols] 
᾿Επικλῆς ἐγρα[μμάτευ]ε Ooplk[ cos]: (2) παρὰ ταμιῶν oft τὰ τῆ]ς 
θεοῦ ἐτα[μίευον] οἷς Κράτης ἐγραμμά]τευε Λαμπίτρεύς]:: (3) 
[πα]ρὰ ᾿Ἑλληνοταμ[ιῶν] οἷς Tpwroy[évns ἐγραμμάτευε Κη- 
[φισιε]ὺς τοῦ ξυμ[μαχικοῦ φόρ]ου μνᾶ ἀπὸ τοῦ [τα]λάντου. 
The last words seem to indicate that the quota of the 
Goddess was on one occasion devoted to the building of 
the Propylaea. Cp. also C. I. A. 309, 310, 312. 

C.I.A. 140. If the conjectural restoration of the last 
lines is’ correct, the treasures of the πρόναος are handed 
over to the Hellenotamiae for the service of the state. __ 

C. I. A. 180-183. The Hellenotamiae are repeatedly 
mentioned in this inscription as having money handed over 
or lent to them by the ταμίαι τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας : and C.I.A. 188, 
189 (an inscription of the end of the Peloponnesian War) 
contains a record of money paid to the Hellenotamiae by 
the ταμίαι ἱερῶν χρημάτων τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας for public purposes, 
ἵπποις σῖτος, ἐς τὴν διωβελίαν. See also C.I.A. 273. 

From the evidence of these inscriptions, from the great- 
ness of the sums taken from or paid back to the Goddess 
and the other deities, from the practice of reckoning 
interest, it seems to be clearly proved that there was 


Ixiv THUCYDIDES. 


a sacred fund which was likewise capable of being used 
in the public service. It is probable from the different 
classes of officers who had the care of the public treasure 
that there was also a secular fund in which the φόρος, i. e. 
the ¢8th, would be included, but this is not established with 
equal clearness. Pericles, when he speaks of the 6000 
talents (ii. 13 med.), makes no distinction. And the amount 
of the sums paid into and out of the sacred fund makes it 
improbable that there was any other fund as large or larger 
which was independent of it. Whether the quota to the 
Goddess was included in the public sacred fund, or remained 
the more private property of the temple, is uncertain. 


The inscription C.I.A. 273, which records the loan of 
the sacred treasure, has also an historical interest derived 
from the mention of names and events which occur in 
Thucydides. 

Under Ol. 88. 4, 425-424 B.C., appears the name of De- 
mosthenes, and probably that of Nicias :— 


στρατηγοῖς περὶ Πε]λοπόννησον Δημοσθένει ᾿Αλκισθένους 
᾿Αφιδ[ναίῳ] 4 4 4 (= 30 talents). 

ér[é]pa δόσις στρατηγοῖς [Νικίᾳ Νικηράτου Κυδα]ντίδῃ bl (= 
100 talents). 


The first payment is made in the fourth, the second in 
the ninth prytany. Probably the reference is to the employ- 
ment of Demosthenes at Pylos late in 425, and of Nicias at 
Cythera early in the summer of 424. (Thuc. iv. 27, 53.) 

Regarded from the historical point of view, C. I. A. 273 
may be placed with another class of inscriptions from which 
the results obtained are rather historical than financial. 
To these we will proceed : 

The money expended from the sacred treasury appears 
to have been reckoned in two forms. In one of these forms 
it was regarded as a debt to the temple, having to pay 
interest, of which calculation is made. In the other form 
the account is simply a record of sums paid to the generals 
or other officers to be used in the public service. 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixv 


In the second form of the account, as might be expected, 
no interest appears; and mention of the ταμίαι, not of both 
ταμίαι and λογισταί, occurs. 

The inscriptions of the second class which relate to the 
narrative of Thucydides, arranged in order of time, are as 
follows :— 

(1) The words πρὸς Σαμίους] and the number of talents Ὁ 
expended, 128, 368, and 908, in all 1404, are legible on a 
small fragment (C.I.A. 177), which may therefore be re- 
ferred with probability to the revolt of Samos (Thuc. i. 116, 
117). The words ᾿Αθηναίας and ταμιῶ[ν] show that the sums 
mentioned were borrowed from the treasury of Athené. 

(2) Another inscription (C.I.A. 179 and Supp.) clearly 
referring to events mentioned by Thucydides partly agrees 
and partly disagrees with his narrative of them. On a 
fragment of marble containing 22 lines more or less com- 
plete occur the following words :— 

1. 7. [παρέδοσαν]ὔ στρατηγοῖς és Kopxvpay τοῖς 
[πρώτοις ἐκ]πλέουσι Λακεδαιμονίῳ Λακία- 
[δή, Πρωτέᾳ] Αἰξωνεῖ, Διοτίμῳ Εὐωνυμεῖ. 
1, 13. [ἐπὶ ᾿Αψεύδους] ἄρχοντος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς βούλης 
1, 18. [ παρέ]δοσαν στρατηγοῖς és Kop- 
[κύραν τοῖς δευτέρ]οις ἐκπλέουσι, Γλαύκωνι 
[ἐκ Κεραμέων, Μεταγ)]ένει Κοιλεῖ, Δρακοντί- 
[δῃ Βατῆθεν, ἐπὶ τῆς] Αἰαντίδος πρυτανείας. 
Cp. Thuc. i. 45, 51, where the Athenians send two squadrons 
to the aid of Corcyra, the first commanded by Lacedae- 
monius the son of Cimon, Diotimus the son of Strombichus, 
and Proteas the son of Epicles, the second by Glaucon the 
son of Leagrus and Andocides the son of Leogoras. The 
name of the Archon is lost, but the words ἐπὶ ᾿Αψεύδους (he 
was Archon in 433-432) exactly fill up a vacant space. In 
the inscription we observe that Dracon or Dracontides takes 
the place of Andocides the son of Leogoras as the second 
commander of the second expedition. There can be no 
doubt that Thucydides and the inscription refer to the 


Ixvi THUCYDIDES. 


same event, and this being so, the authority of the marble 
is to be preferred to that of the book, though there is no 
- reason for suspecting the reading. 

(3) In Thucydides, ii. 23, mention is made of Carcinus and 
Proteas, who with Socrates were sent with a hundred ships 
to devastate the coast of the Peloponnesus in the first year 
of the war. The first two names are found in a fragment 
recently discovered (C. I. A. Supp. 179 a-d. p. 32) :— 

1.11. -acet Π[ρ]ωτέᾳ Αἰξωυ εἴ} 
1. τό. ταῦτα ἐδόθη Καρκίνω[ ι] Θορικίφ. 
1. 18. [Καρ]κίνῳ Θορικίφ. 


On other fragments, assigned by Kirchhoff to the same 
tablet, in which he supposes the expenditure of the years 
432-424 to have been given, are traces of an expedi- 
tion against Macedonia (Thuc. i. 61°) and Sicily (Thuc. 
iii. 86. 

(4) A long but very imperfect inscription (C.I.A. 
180-183, Newton and Hicks, xxiii) records the sums paid 
out of the Athenian treasury in the years 418-415 (Ol. 90. 4-- 
g1.2). The dates are fixed by the occurrence of the names 
of financial officers found elsewhere, and by the following 
coincidences with the narrative of Thucydides. 

In the accounts of the first year, 418-417, we find the 
words— 

τους τοῖς pera Δημοσθένους, 
and again— 

[ὁπλιταγ]ωγοὺς rots μετὰ Δημ[οσθένους], Thuc. v. 80, 
and— 


[σ]τρατηγοῖς Νικίᾳ Νικηράτου Κυδαντ]ίδῃ. Thuc. v. 83. 


In the accounts of the second year, 417-416, occur the 
words— 


[Tecol]q Τεισιμάχου Κεφαλῆθεν, Κλεομήδει Λυκο[μήδους,] 
to whom it is recorded that ten talents were paid. Cp. 
Thuc. v. 84, where Cleomedes the son of Lycomedes and 


Tisias the son of Tisimachus command the expedition 
against Melos. 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixvii 


In the accounts of the third year, 416-415, more famous 

names occur— 

[Νικίᾳ Ne]xnpdrov Κυδαντίδῃ καὶ παρεδρο .. 
δηά--- 

[στρ]ατηγοῖς ἐς Σικελίαν ᾿ΑἸλκιβιάδῃ Λαμάχφ.-. 
and again— 

στρατηγοῖς és Σικελ[ίαν ᾿Α]λκιβιάδῃ Aapdxy . . 
and again— 

ATTTT....(=14 talents). 


In the accounts of the fourth year, 415-414, occur the 
words, ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Αντιοχίδος ὀγδόης πρυτανευούσης τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
τῆς πρυ]τανείας Ἑλληνοταμίαις καὶ παρέδροις ᾿Αριστοκρ] ἀτΊει 
Εὐωνυμεῖ καὶ ξυνάρχουσι bith (ΞΞ 300 talents) οὗτοι δ᾽ ἔδοσαν 
[τῇ ἐν Σικελίᾳ στ]ρατίᾳ (Kirchhoff writes π{{{π|Π], but accord- 
ing to Hicks the three ciphers are quite legible); and again, 
*EdAnvoraulats (κ.τ.λ.) és τὰς] ναῦς ras ἐς Σι[κελίαν παρέδομεν] 
τὰ χρή[μ]ατα ΤΤΤΤΧΧ (4 talents 2000 drachmae). 

In the summary of the accounts at the end of the year 
the three hundred talents reappear, together with the lesser 
sums expended :— 

"κεφάλαιον ἀνα[λώματος τ]οῦ ἐπὶ τ[ἢς] ἀρχῆς ΠΠΠΠΡΤΤΤ 

. « (353 talents). 

Cp. Thue. vi. 94 fin., καὶ ἀφικόμενοι és Κατάνην καταλαμβάνουσι 
τούς τε ἱππέας ἥκοντας ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίους, 
ἄνευ τῶν ἵππων μετὰ σκευῆς, ὡς αὐτόθεν ἵππων πορισθησομένων, 
καὶ ἱπποτοξότας τριάκοντα, καὶ τάλαντα ἀργυρίου τριακόσια. 
The prytany in which the three hundred talents are given, 
the eighth, corresponds to the beginning of spring, when, 
according to Thucydides, money and other supplies were 
sent to the Athenian army in Sicily. 

(5) A long but fragmentary inscription (C.I.A. 185; 
Newton and Hicks, xxiv), out of which it is impossible to 
make continuous sense, is assigned to the date Ol. 92. 1-2; 
412-411. The writing and the contents are such as we 
should expect to find about this time; and inscriptions of 
the same character are extant for Ol. 90. 3-91.2 (just 


Ixvili THUCYDIDES. 


quoted) and for Ol. 92. 3 and 92.4 or 93.2. It therefore 
very probably belongs to the intermediate years. 

Two interesting but uncertain conjectures, if they could 
be accepted, would confirm this date. 

Boeckh proposes to restore |. 5 (A) thus— 


[ἐκ τῶν els τὰς τρι]ήρεις ὧν παρελάβομ[ ev παρὰ τῶν προτέρων 
ταμιῶν.] 

‘From the money for the triremes which we received 
from the last treasurers.’ 


He ingeniously argues that the inscription refers to the 
reserve fund of 1000 talents, which was not to be touched 
until Athens was in the last extremity. But it is not said 
either in ii. 24 or in viii. 15 that the 1000 talents were es- 
pecially reserved for the building of triremes. Hence the 
words els ras τριήρεις do not identify this occasion with that 
mentioned in viii. 15, and very probably refer to some 
other: moncy must constantly have been ‘spent on tri- 
remes. There was another provision, that 100 triremes 
were to be set apart annually, and only used, like the 
money, when the enemy menaced the Piraeus with a fleet. 
This latter provision it must have been impossible to ob- 
serve after the Syracusan expedition. Nothing is said 
about it in viii. 15. And it is quite distinct from the pro- 
vision respecting the 1000 talents. The conjectural restora- 
tion, as will be seen by the letters, is of the most doubtful 
kind. 

Again, the words ἀπὸ πρυ[τανείας] in 1. 11 (A) have been 
thought to show that the accounts of sums paid out at the 
end of Ol. 92.1 are dated ‘from a (previous) prytany,’ not 
‘in a prytany,’ ἀπὸ πρυτανείας, not ἐπὶ τῆς (say Οἰνηΐδος) πρυ- 
τανείας. And here a trace has been found of the government 
of the 400, B.C. 411; for after the expulsion of the senate of 
500 there would be no regular prytanies. But the words are 
too imperfect to allow any inference to be drawn from them. 

(6) C.I.A. 188, 189 is an inscription of which the first 
part is very complete, and contains the accounts of Ol. 92.3, 
410-409, the year following that in which the history of 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixix 


Thucydides concludes. It illustrates the exhaustion of the 
Athenian finances after the Sicilian expedition and the 
troubles of the year 411 (cp. viii. 76, of ye μήτε ἀργύριον ἔτι 
εἶχον πέμπειν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐπορίζοντο of στρατιῶται). For the 
heading of the inscription referring to the payments of the 
whole year describes them as made ἐκ τῶν ἐπετείων, none 
of them are made ἐξ ὧν παρελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν προτέρων 
ταμιῶν. So that the money belonging to the sacred 
treasure must have been nearly or quite exhausted by 
the middle of 410. 

The sum expended in the year, of which the record is 
nearly complete, amounts to about 180 talents. On this 
fact Kirchhoff bases his estimate of the annual income of 
the sacred treasure at 200 talents. 

There are a few other inscriptions relating to finance 
which stand in a more accidental relation to the narrative 
of Thucydides; such as the fragments of the accounts 
drawn up by the overseers of the Propylaea while in pro- 
cess of erection (C.I.A. 314, 315; cp. Thuc. iii. 17), of the 
accounts of the officers who had charge of the sacred islands 
Delos and Rhenea, belonging to the Archonship of Crates 
and Apseudes, 434, 433 (C.I.A. 283; cp. iii. 104), and lastly 
the lists of confiscated property sold by the Poletae. 
Some fragments of these last (C.I.A. 274-277 and Supp.) 
contain names of persons who, according to Andoc. de 
Myst., were punished by confiscation of their goods for the 
mutilation of the Hermae or the profanation of the mysteries. 


II. Decrees of the senate and people not already men- 
tioned, and not relating to finance, which illustrate the 
history of Thucydides, are the following :— 

C.I.A. 9 is an inscription no longer existing and incor- 
rectly copied, but of great importance. It contains a decree 
(1) requiring the Erythraeans to contribute to the Pan- 
athenaic festival something, probably victims, worth 3 minae, 
under a penalty: (2) creating a βουλή of the democratic type 
consisting of 120 members, who are to be at least 30 years of 
age. Their oath of office and the penalties which attach to 


Ixx THUCYDIDES. 


the non-enforcement of it by the then senate are inserted 
in the decree. Mention occurs in the oath of [of és] Μήδους 
φυγόντες]. In another part of the decree penalties are im- 
posed upon persons guilty of homicide, impiety, or treason. 
The two fragmentary inscriptions which follow (C. I. A. 
10, 11) also relate to Erythrae, the former making mention 
of lawsuits, the latter of an oath to be taken by the Ery- 
thraeans. All these three relate to the times between the 
Persian and the Peloponnesian wars. The form of the letters 
is said to show that 10 belongs to a time before 450. Both 
9 and 10 mention ἐπίσκοποι : cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1021 ff. 
C.I.A. 13. Cp. 36. Both these relate to Colophon. 
The first is part of a decree receiving the Colophonians 
into alliance, to which is attached a form of oath. The 
second is a decree conferring protection and other favours 
and honours on Aretus the Colophonian, for services ren- 
dered to the Athenian people and their army ([«]at τοὺς 
στρατιώτας), probably at the time when Paches took Notium 
and restored it to the Colophonians; Thuc. iii. 34. 
Supplement 27 ὦ contains two decrees of the senate and 
people. The first, proposed by Diognetus, prescribes the 
terms of an oath to be taken by the Athenian senate and 
dicasts to the Chalcidians, and by all the Chalcidians of 
full age to Athens. The Athenians promise not to expel 
the Chalcidians from their country, and not to disfranchise, 
banish, arrest, kill, or fine, any individual Chalcidian un- 
tried (ἀκ[ρ]ίτου) without the consent of the Athenian people. 
Compare Thuc. viii. 48 fin., of the allies, καὶ ἄκριτοι ἂν καὶ 
βιαίοτερον ἀποθνήσκειν. They on their part promise to be 
faithful allies, and to pay a tribute of an amount such as the 
Athenians may agree to impose (ὃν ἂν πείθω ᾿Αθηναίου»). 
According to the second decree, moved by Anticles, five 
commissioners are sent to receive the oath. The hostages 
are to remain as they are for the present. The ἀτέλεια of 
foreigners residing in Chalcis, and of all who have received 
the privilege from Athens, is to be maintained. The decree 
is to be inscribed on a column at Athens at the expense of 
the Chalcidians, and to be deposited in the temple of Zeus 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixxi 


at Chalcis. Three members of the senate are to offer sacri- 
fices on behalf of Euboea in consequence of certain oracles. 
An addition to the second decree, moved by Archestratus, 
provides that crimes involving a penalty of banishment, 
death, or disfranchisement, are to be sent for trial to 
Athens; and that the generals are to take care of Euboea. 

The decrees, of which the tone is conciliatory, appear to 
belong to a time shortly after the reduction of Euboea by 
Pericles, Thuc. i. 114. Anticles is the name of one of the 
Athenian commanders at Samos (i. 117): Archestratus, of 
one of the commanders at Potidaea (i. 57). 

This is one of the most perfect of early Greek inscrip- 
tions, and has more the character of a regular prose com- 
position, or of a page out of history, than any other. 

Supp. 224 is a long but fragmentary inscription, prob- 
ably earlier than 447, relating to the constitution of Miletus. 

28 and 29 are decrees respecting the relations of Athens 
to the Athenian cleruchs of Hestiaea in Euboea, who were 
settled there after the revolt, Ol. 83. 4, B.C. 445 (cp. 
Thucyd. i. 114 fin., vii. 57 init.). The inscription is inferred, 
from the writing as well as from the contents, to be older 
than the Peloponnesian War. It contains provisions (1) 
for regulating the traffic and the payment of tolls on the 
route between Hestiaea and Athens by way of Oropus ; 
(2) respecting the trial of causes, either at Athens or by 
inhabitants of Hestiaea. 

33 (cp. Supp.) records a treaty with Rhegium made in 
Ol. 86. 4, B.C. 433. Nothing is said in Thucydides of the 
original making of the treaty. But compare the next: 

Suppl. 33 18 the subscription of a treaty with Leontini 
also made in 433 B.C., the archonship of Apseudes, two years 
before the war, and apparently on the same day. Six 
years afterwards the Leontines and their allies, including the 
Rhegians, who were then engaged in a war with the Syra- 
cusans, applied for a new alliance with Athens, xara παλαιὰν 
ξυμμαχίαν (Thuc. iii. 86 med.), being possibly that which 
is recorded in the inscription, but more probably a much 
older one: cp. note on ii. 22, 3. 


xxii THUCYDIDES. 


40 contains three decrees relating to the Methoneans and 
Perdiccas. According to the provisions of the first decree, 
the Methonaeans are only to pay the quota of εἰσ ἢ to the 
Goddess ; and, if they are useful to the Athenians ‘ as they 
are now, and still better,’ they are not to be subject to any 
general but only to a special regulation respecting arrears 
of tribute. To Perdiccas three ambassadors are sent: he is 
to be told that he must allow the Methonaeans the free 
use of the sea, and not pass through their country without 
permission being first obtained from them. If he and the 
Methonaeans consent, the ambassadors are to arrange 
matters between them, but if not, their differences are to 
be brought to Athens: if he makes his conduct agreeable 
to the troops at Cape Posidium the Athenians will have 
a good opinion of him, γνώμας ἀγαθὰς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἕξουσιν. 

By the second decree the Methonaeans receive per- 
mission to export corn up to a certain amount from Byzan- 
tium, and are not to be hindered in doing so by some 
officers called Wardens of the Hellespont. As in the 
former decree, they are only subject to special regulations 
about aid to be given to the Athenian state or any other 
service required of the allies. The differences with Per- 
diccas still continue. The third decree is a mere fragment. 

42 is a treaty made with Perdiccas, but the fragments of 
the inscription have no connected meaning. The treaty 
refers to Arrhibaeus, and among the names appended to it 
are those of Alcetas (Plato, Gorg. 471) and Philip (Thuc. 
i. 57), the brothers of Perdiccas, and of Archelaus the son 
of Perdiccas. 

In inscription 43, to which no meaning can be given, the 
names of Perdiccas and perhaps Arrhibaeus also occur. 

45. In the archonship of Aristion, B.C. 421, one Asteas of 
Alea is inscribed as proxenus and benefactor of Athens. 

46 ὁ (Supp.). A fragment of a treaty of the Athenians 
with the Argives, Mantineans, and Eleans, recorded also with 
very slight variations in Thucyd. v. 47. For a full discus- 
sion of it see note in loco. The difficulty there mentioned, 
namely that the space which requires to be filled up in the 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixxiii 


inscription is too great for the number of letters in the text 
of Thucydides, would be removed if we could suppose that 
vacant spaces were left between the clauses. It is beau- 
fully printed in Poppo, 2nd ed. min. (Stahl), end of bk. v. 

47 is a decree, not later than Ol. go (B.C. 420 to 417), 
respecting trierarchs and payment of sailors, but no con- 
nected meaning can be elicited from it. 

49. The words occur Ὑπέρβολος εἶπε. If this be the 
demagogue Hyperbolus, exiled about 419 B.c., the inscrip- 
tion would be of an earlier date. 

50 is a treaty between the Athenians and Argives, not 
that given in v. 47, and therefore probably that referred to 
in v. 82 fin. 

51 has important additions in the Supplement. For a full 
discussion of it see supra, pp. XX, XXi. 

52 is a treaty between the Athenians and Bottiaeans. 
Spartolus, which as we learn from Thucydides (ii. 79) was 
a city in Bottiaca, was to have been given up by the Lace- 
daemonians to Athens, when peace was made in 421, on 
condition that the place should be independent, but might 
be received if willing into the Athenian alliance (v. 18 med.). 

54 is a decree about an expedition of 30 ships of war. 
For the question whcther this is the Melian expedition 
(Thuc. v. 84), see supra, p. xx. 

55 also relates to an expedition, consisting of 60 ships ; 
it is indicated by the datives in ats to be not older than 
Ol. yo. It has been thought to refer to the first decree for 
the Sicilian expedition ; but see supra, p. xix. 

56 contains a tribute of honour decreed to the Samians 
because they had emancipated (?) themselves, ὅτι σφᾶς 
αὐτοὺς [ἠλευθέρωσανἾ, evidently referring to the events of 
412 recorded in Thucydides, viii. 21. Mention is made 
in the decree of deaths, exiles, and confiscations inflicted 
by the Samian people, and of certain offenders whom they 
are to send to Athens. 

57 contains a decree limiting the power of the senate, 
probably after the overthrow of the 400. Mention occurs 
of 500 men, and, shortly afterwards, of 500 drachmae. 

VOL, IL. f 


Ixxiv THUCYDIDES. 


59 contains a decrce in honour of Thrasybulus, Agoratus, 
and others for some service done to the Athenians. This is 
gathered from Lysias c. Agoratum to be the assassination of 
Phrynichus ; see note on viii. 92. 2. 

71 (Supp.). A defensive alliance made between the 
Athenians and the Halieans, indicated by the form of the 
letters to be not earlier than Ol. 90, and by the subject not 
later than the renewal of the war. This treaty with Halieis 
is not mentioned by Thucydides. But in iv. 45 we are 
told that the Athenians occupied a position near Methoné 
(Methana), and ravaged the territory of Troezen, Halieis, 
and Epidaurus. According to iv. 118 med. an agreement 
was subsequently made with Troezen. And this treaty 
with Halicis, as well as the treaty with Epidaurus men- 
tioned in v. 80 (unless it be the general peace of 421, see 
note), may be connected with the same occurrence. 

A long and almost complete inscription lately discovered 
at Eleusis illustrates the sacred character of the ‘ Pelasgian 
ground’ mentioned by Thucydides, ii. 17. The senate and 
people give directions for offering an ἀπαρχή of wheat and 
barley to the two goddesses of Eleusis, κατὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ 
τὴν μάντειαν τὴν ἐγ Δελφῶν. The allies of Athens are re- 
quired, and all the cities of Hellas are invited, to join in the 
offering. There is appended an amendment or additional 
proposal moved by Lampon, perhaps the celebrated sooth- 
sayer, part of which is as follows: τὸν δὲ βασ[ ι]λέα ὁρίσαι 
τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ ἐν τ[ὦ]ι. Πελαργικῷ καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν μὴ ἐνἱδρύεσθαι 
βωμοὺς ἐν τῷ Πελαργικῷ ἄνευ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου, μηδὲ 
τοὺς λίθους τέμνειν ἐκ τοῦ Πελαργικοῦ, μηδὲ γῆν ἐχσάγειν μηδὲ 
λίθους. The inscription is edited by M. Foucart in the 
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, iv. p. 225. The 
use of 2, not $, is said by him to fix the date after 454, the 
datives in -now before 415. As the character of the early 
part of the inscription seems to assign it to a time of peace, 
it may belong to the peace of Nicias, or more probably to 
the years preceding the Peloponnesian War. 

The words immediately preceding the regulation about 
the Pelasgicum are remarkable: μῆνα δὲ ἐμβάλλειν Ἕκατον- 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixxv 


βαιῶνα τὸν νέον ἄρχοντα. It has been hitherto supposed 
that in the fifth century B.c., as in later times, the month 
intercalated was Poseideon (Dec.-Jan.). The inscription 
would seem to show either that any month might be inter- 
calated, or that it was sometimes necessary to intercalate 
an additional month. It also raises a doubt whether the 
Athenians about the time of the Peloponnesian War em- 
ployed a fixed cycle of years, that of Meton or any other, 
and did not rather intercalate a month when necessary 
(Droysen, in ‘Hermes’ for 1880, x. p. 364). The inscrip+ 
tion affords a fresh illustration of the uncertainty of Greek 
chronology, considered in the note on ii. 2. | 

M. Foucart interprets the words of the intercalation of a 
day or a few days in the month Hecatombaeon. But surely, 
as Droysen says, they must refer to the whole month. 

For an inscription subsequent to the Archonship of 
Euclides which has been thought to throw some light ,on 
i. 77, ἐν tats ξυμβολαίαις πρὸς τοὺς ξυμμάχους δίκαις, see infra, 
note on ξυμβόλαιαι δίκαι. 


III. Dedicatory inscriptions. 

For the inscription on the serpent which once supported 
the tripod dedicated by the Grecks after the battle of 
Plataea, see note on i. 132. 3. A fuller and more recent 
account of this ancient monument by the author there 
quoted, Frick, will be found in the Neue Jahrbiicher fiir 
Philologie, Suppl. iii. pp. 485-556. 

For the inscription on the altar erected by Pisistratus son. 
of Hippias, see note on vi. 54. 7. 

A curious coincidence with the words of Thucydides is 
presented by C.I.A. 340. A pedestal of Pentelic marble 
preserves the words—_ 


EPOIKON | EXPOTEIAAIAN 


Cp. Thuc. ii. 70, καὶ ὕστερον ἐποίκους ἑαυτῶν ἔπεμψαν ἐς τὴν 
Ποτίδαιαν καὶ κατῴκισαν. 
For an inscription relating to Corcyra, see note on 
iii, 84. 1. 
f 2 


Ιχχνὶ THUCYDIDES. 


IV. Sepulchral inscriptions. 

The inscription in honour of the dead who fell at Potidaea 
(C.I.A. 442) is given in the note oni. 61. 3. That on the 
fallen of the tribe Erechtheis (C.I.A. 433) is given in the note 
on i. 103. 1, and alluded to in other passages of this essay. 

An inscription (C. 1. A. 446) over those who fell at Poti- 
daea, Amphipolis, and elsewhere, and another over those 
who fell at Thasos (C. I. A. 432), are discussed on iv. 129. 

For the beautiful epitaph of Simonides on Archedicé, 
the daughter of Hippias, see text, vi. 59. 

C.I.A. 475, [λ]οίμῳ θανούσης εἰμί σῆμα Μυρίνης might be 
attributed to the time of the great plague, were not the 
writing (®¢) too archaic. 

C.I.A. 479, 483 are fragments of sepulchral monuments 
found among what are supposed to be the remains of the 
Themistoclean walls :— 


479. Σῆμα φί[λ]ου παιδὸς τόδε .... κατ]έθηκεν, 
Στησίου, ὃν θάνατος [δακρυ]όεις καθέχει. 


The inscription is broken into two pieces, and is not written 
metrically. 


483. ᾿Αντιδότου. | Καλλωνίδης ἐποίει | ὁ Δεινίου. 


Compare Thucydides’ description of the structure of the 
wall (i. 93 init.): ‘To this day the structure shows evidence 
of haste. The foundations are made up of all sorts of 
stones, in some places unwrought, and laid just as each 
worker brought them ; there were many columns too, taken 
JSrom sepulchres, and many old stones already cut, inserted 
in the work.’ 


Such appears to be the amount of light thrown upon 
Thucydides by Greek inscriptions. The comparison of 
them would have been more interesting had we been able 
freely to accept the conjectures of archaeologists. There is 
always a temptation to convert the uncertain and indefinite 
into the definite and certain. The greater the ingenuity 
the greater the fascination, though often the greater the 
improbability. But we must remember that there are 
myths or romances of modern criticism as well as of early 


INSCRIPTIONS. Ixxvii 


history, and in the latter half of the nineteenth century we 
have not so much to fear from the last as from the first. 
Ἴσως τὸ μὴ μυθῶδες αὐτῶν ἀτερπέστερον φανεῖται, but ὠφέλιμα 
κρίνειν αὐτὰ ἀρκούντως ἔξει. A few grains of fact secured to 
the world once for all are of more value than many brilliant 
theories which appear and disappear, like intellectual me-- 
teors, in successive generations, 

The evil tendency of the study is that it encourages the 
habit of conjecture, which has already been one of the 
great corruptions of philology. There is a necessity for 
making too much out of a few letters or words, and thus 
appearing to obtain a result commensurate with the 
labour spent upon them. The slenderness of his materials 
leads the enquirer to snatch at chance coincidences. His 
honest enthusiasm will sometimes make him forget that 
the words or letters upon which his conclusion is based 
are due to conjecture. He is too apt to apply an inscrip- 
tion to the interpretation of a difficulty in an ancient 
author. Where the balance of probability is just in favour 
of a conclusion, it is assumed by him to be a certainty; and 
the new fact which is supposed to be proved is set rolling, 
and draws after it other inferences still more uncertain. A 
possible deduction from the inscriptions, such as the doubling 
of the Athenian tribute-moncy, or the transfer of the com- 
mon treasury from Delos to Athens in the year 454 (resting 
only on the circumstance that in this year the quota lists 
begin), is repeated at second or third hand as a great his- 
torical discovery. In the absence of contemporary, we 
are satisfied with later, evidence; and the older history of 
Athens is interpreted by inscriptions of the second or third 
century, and inscriptions of the second or third century are 
explained by the older history of Athens. Where singular 
forms of grammar occur only once or twice, e.g. σωῶ for 
σώσω, or the omission of the article, we are not quite cer- 
tain how much is to be attributed to the carelessness of the 
engraver. On the other hand, from the frequent repetition 
of it, there can be no doubt that the form of the third 
person plural imperative, -όσθων for -έσθων, is a real variety 
of inflexion. The uncertainty in the use of several letters, 


Ixxviii THUCYDIDES. 


even in the same inscription, or the inconsistency of the 
writing and the subject (C.I.A. 8, 93, 283), suggests doubts 
as to the limits within which this undoubtedly valid argu- 
ment of date may be employed. The considerable differ- 
ences which occur in the interpretation and reading of the 
text as given by Boeckh, Kirchhoff, Kohler, Newton and 
Hicks, are another element of uncertainty. 

ΑἹ] these are reasons for hesitation. They show that we 
must not indulge in sanguine or exaggerated language, but 
must confine ourselves to general results. And general 
results, when they relate to the history of the past, are by 
no means to be despised. Though we cannot rewrite the 
history of Greece out of her stones, is it a small thing to 
know that inscriptions of the fifth century before Christ 
confirm and illustrate the great literary works of the same 
age? They bring nearer home to us Greek political in- 
stitutions, the great struggle for freedom, the writings of 
Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon. They realize to us 
the innumerable details of private life about which history 
is silent ; they illustrate forcibly some of the characteristics 
of Athenian public life, such as the imperative nature of 
duty to the state, the universal responsibility and liability 
to audit of treasurers and other officers, the great number 
of citizens annually chosen by lot to take part in the admi- 
nistration of the city (Thuc. ii. 40 init.). They add to our 
previous knowledge a few facts. They make an important 
contribution to the history of the Greek alphabet. And 
the investigation of them, especially on the spot, is full of 
interest independentlv of the result. To be busy on Greek 
soil, under the light of the blue heaven, amid the scenes of 
ancient glory, in reading inscriptions, or putting together frag- 
ments of stone or marble, has a charm of another kind than 
that which is to be found in the language of ancient authors. 
Yet even to appreciate truly the value of such remains, it is 
to the higher study of the mind of Hellas and of her great 
men that we must return, finding some little pleasure by the 
way (like that of looking at an autograph) in deciphering 
the handwriting of her children amid the dust of her ruins. 


NOTE ON THE 


GEOGRAPHY OF THUCYDIDES. 


VARIOUS difficulties have been found in the geography 
of Thucydides: his accounts of places are at variance 
sometimes (1) with facts, sometimes (2) with the state- 
ments of later writers. It may be said of his descriptions 
generally, as of most early descriptions, that they are 
graphic rather than accurate. When we try to reproduce 
them in the mind something is wanting. For example, we 
do not gather from his narrative where the Euryelus was 
situated by which the Athenians, and also Gylippus, as- 
cended the heights of Epipolae (note on vii. 42. 4), or how 
the Syracusan defences lay after the completion of the third 
counter-wall (note on vii. 7.1), or how the dolphins were 
placed for the protection of the Athenian ships in the great 
Syracusan harbour (note on vii. 38. 3). The topography 
of battles is often imperfect, and sometimes leads to a diff- 
culty in the explanation of them. The narrative of the 
battle of Amphipolis leads to the inference (see Arnold’s 
Appendix) that the city was not at the top but on the slope 
of the hill which Cleon ascended with his army, but this 
can only be inferred with some uncertainty and is not 
definitely expressed. Perhaps without maps and plans a 
better delineation was impossible. The narrative of the 
second sea-fight in the Crisaean gulf (ii. 90 ff.) is incoherent: 
for we are not told what happened to that portion of the 
Peloponnesian fleet which was originally victorious. The 
manner of the attack which ended in the capture of the 
first Syracusan counter-wall (note on vi. 100. 3) is not fully 
described and can only be inferred. Once more, in the 


Ixxx THUCYDIDES. 


calculation of distances the cye or the information of the 
writer was frequently at fault. For examples see below. 

There has been a good deal of controversy on this subject. 
Even into geography the spirit of party may find a way. 
Some commentators have been desirous of maintaining the 
credit of their author, like Dr. Arnold, who was of opinion 
that ‘when Geographers who are also Scholars visit the 
places of which Thucydides speaks personally, most of the 
difficulties in his descriptions will vanish.’ That remark of 
course supposes that Thucydides, rightly understood, is 
generally or alwavs in the right. We may imagine the 
writer of it to feel what he does not say: ‘The most accu- 
rate and trustworthy of historians can hardly be imagined 
to be ignorant as a schoolboy of geography.’ And certainly 
in his account of Pylos and Sphacteria, Dr. Arnold is ready, 
in a figure, to work a miracle in order to save the reputation 
of Thucydides. Changes in the formation of the coast are 
the ‘ Deus ex machina’ to which he has recourse. 

Yet it may very likely be true that Thucydides is far 
behind Strabo or Pausanias or Stephanus Byzantinus in 
geography, though his conception of history may be quite 
unattainable by them. Still greater would be the dis- 
parity of his knowledge when compared with that of a 
modern traveller, such as Colonel Leake or Sir William 
Gell. For the knowledge of geography is always growing 
with time, while history fades into the distance. The 
materials of the one are increasing, while the materials of 
the other are diminishing. The credibility of an author's 
geography is not therefore to be Judged of by the credi- 
bility of his history, because in the one far more than in 
the other he is dependent on the conditions of his age. 

In this short note it is not intended to entcr into the 
discussion of particular passages, but rather to urge two 
general principles: (1) that geographical accuracy is not 
to be expected from a writer of the age of Thucydides: 
(2) that the number of his inaccuracies shows them to be 
attributable rather to his ignorance, than to the ignorance 
of later writers, or of ourselves. 


\ 


GEOGRAPHY. Ixxxi 


To attempt to reconcile the gcography of Thucydides 
with facts may be the same error in kind, though not in 
degree, as to try and adapt the drive of Telemachus be- 
tween Sparta and Pylos to the present condition of the 
country, or to seek for the cave by which Odysseus was 
deposited, on the sea-shore of Ithaca. As the more fami- 
liar features of a scene are likely to be reproduced in the 
creations of the poet, so the ancient historian will roughly 
guess distances. But he may often make mistakes about a 
region with which he was unacquainted, and he will not al- 
ways be able to judge what amount of description is re- 
quired in order to place before his readers a just conception 
of a place or of a battle. There were no surveys of coun- 
tries or measurements of distances in the age of Herodotus 
and Thucydides (except along the course of great roads such 
as the Persian highways), but only the proverbially uncertain 
measure of a day’s journey or of a day’s sail (see Thuc. ii. 
97, and Arnold’s note). There were no correct maps, but 
only rude delineations such as made Herodotus laugh 
(iv. 36). The eye was the judge of the distance across a 
strait or across the entrance of a harbour. Daily expe- 
rience tells us how seldom the power of judging distances 
is found in any one who has not been trained by long habit. 

Some of the errors in Thucydides which have suggested 
the above remarks are the following :— 

ii. 86 med. The distance of Rhium in Achaia from Rhium 
on the opposite coast is said by Thucydides to be less than 
a mile (7 stadia). According to Col. Leake (Morea, ii. 148) 
‘the distance is little, if at all, short of a mile and a half,’ 
and would have been considerably greater in ancient times 
if we assume, as in this particular instance there is reason 
for thinking, that the sea, owing to the deposits of rivers, 
has retreated about 250 yards on the south, and somewhat 
less on the north coast. 

iv. 8 med. The southern entrance of the harbour formed 
by the bay of Navarino is said by Col. Leake to be more 
than 1400 yards in width, and the northern about 150 
yards. But according to Thucydides, the northern entrance 


Ixxxii THUCYDIDES. 


admitted the passage of only two ships, the southern of not 
more than eight or nine, and the Lacedaemonians had in- 
tended to block up both passages by ships placed length- 
ways. See note on iv. 3. I. 

iv. 57 init. According to Thucydides, Thyrea was situ- 
ated about Io stadia from the sea, or about 14 of a mile. 
According to Col. Leake (Morea, ii. 492) ‘it is at least 
three times that distance. Other writers suggest other 
sites. But there are no remains which agree with the 
distance mentioned in Thucydides (Bursian, Geographie 
von Griechenland, ii. p. 70). 

iv. 66 med. According to Thucydides, Megara was situ- 
ated 8 stadia from the sea-port of Nisaea: according to 
Strabo (ix. 1. 4, p. 391) 18 stadia was the distance. He is 
followed by Col. Leake (Northern Greece, ii. 401 ff.) and 
Ross, though Arnold, whose opinion is adopted in the note 
on iii. 51. 3, differs from them. 

vi. 104 med. Gylippus sailing from Tarentum to Sicily 
was caught by a storm in the Terinaean gulf. But the 
Terinaean gulf, called also the Sinus Hipponiates, is on 
the west coast of Italy (Pliny, iii. 72. 5, 10) See note 
in loco. . | 

viii. 88 init. Alcibiades is described as sailing straight 
from Samos to Phaselis and Caunus on his way to As- 
pendus, and as returning to Samos from Caunus and 
Phaselis (108 init.). The inverse order in both cases is 
the true one. Dr. Arnold supposes the words to mean 
‘straight to Phaselis, having first touched at Caunus ;’ ‘from 
Caunus, and before that from Phaselis. But this explana- 
tion is forced in itself, and is rendered impossible by the 
repetition of the wrong order in the description of the re- 
turn voyage. 

viii. 101 fin. Similarly, Larissa and Hamaxitus are men- 
tioned in a wrong order (see Strabo, xiii. 1. 47, 48, pp. 604, 
605). 

vi. 72 init. So Naxos and Catana. 

iii. 29 med. So Icarus and Myconus. 

vii. 19 init. Decelea is said to be visible and distant about 


GEOGRAPHY. Ixxxiit 


120 stadia (i.e. about fourteen miles) from Athens, and 
about the same or a little more from Boeotia. In reality it 
was much nearer Boeotia, and the place itself probably not 
visible from Athens. It has been suggested that Thucy- 
dides is here thinking of the far-off corner of Boeotia at 
Oropus, from which an important road ran through Decelea 
(vii. 28 init.) to Athens. Still this would only show how 
alifferent his mode of expression is from that of a modern 
writer. . 

vili. 26 med. Λέρον τὴν πρὸ Μιλήτου νῆσον. But Leros 
is forty miles from Miletus. All the MSS. except the 
Vatican read Ἔλεον, a place of which the name is other- 
wise unknown. λέρον is probably correct, and is confirmed 
by the close connection which we find existing between 
Leros and Miletus in the tribute lists (C. I. A. 37, 226, 
251, 262, 264). 

iii. 4 fin. ὥρμουν ἐν τῇ Μαλέᾳ πρὸς βορέαν τῆς πόλεως 
(compare c. 6, περιορμισάμενοι τὸ πρὸς νότον). But according 
to Strabo, Malea was at the southern extremity of the 
island: see however note on the passage. 

i. 61 med. ἀφικόμενοι ἐς Βέροιαν κἀκεῖθεν ἐπιστρέψαντες. 
But Beroea was several days’ march out of the road from 
Pydna to Potidaea; nor could the Athenians possibly 
have reached Gigonus by slow marches three days after 
their departure from Beroea (κατ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ προϊόντες τριταῖοι 
ἀφίκοντο ἐς Γίγωνον). See note 2 loco. 

We may also notice that where Thucydides evidently 
wants to express geographical ideas with precision, as in 
li. g fin., νῆσοι ὅσαι ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ Κρήτης πρὸς ἥλιον 
ἀνίσχοντα, πᾶσαι al ἄλλαι Κυκλάδες πλὴν Μήλου καὶ Θήρας, or 
in the description of the island of Cythera, iv. 53 fin., πᾶσα 
(i.e. either ἡ νῆσος or 7 Λακωνική) yap ἀνέχει πρὸς τὸ Σικελικὸν 
καὶ Κρητικὸν πέλαγος, he has caused a great deal of trouble 
to his interpreters. There is a lesser degree of obscurity in 
the description of the country about Chimerium (i. 46 fin.), 
especially the words pet δὲ καὶ Ovapis ποταμός, ὁρίζων τὴν 
Oconpwrlda καὶ Κεστρίνην, dv ἐντὸς ἡ ἄκρα ἀνέχει τὸ Χειμέριον, 
where ὧν refers not to τὴν Θεσπρωτίδα καὶ Κεστρίνην, but to 


Ixxxiv THUCYDIDES. 


ποταμῶν, gathered from the previous sentence (scil. th *° 
Achcron and the Thyamis). 

It is worth while also to compare the description of th # “ 
kingdom of the Odrysae in ii. 97, which though not obscures” Ὁ 
is cumbrous and very unlike the manner of a moderr 
geographer. 


Considering the number of these errors and the proba- an 
bility that Thucydides from his imperfect means of know- ~~ ee 
ledge would have fallen into them, is it worth while, for the “ἢ Ὁ 
sake of vindicating his credit, either to alter the text, or to - «αἱ 
assume changes in the face of nature, unless there is actual P= 
proof of them in each particular case? All that we can «ι 
reasonably expect of him is that he should be-a little in 3 


advance of his predecessors, not that he should vie with 
modern accuracy, or equally with a modern historian be 
alive to the value of topography, or realise the fulness and 
minuteness of detail which is required in a describer of 
places or of military movements. 


NOTE ON 


AIKAI ΑΠΟ SYMBOAON oxo SYMBOAAIAI. 
\ 


SINCE the note on i. 77.1 was printed, the attention of 
the writer has been called to an article in the first number 
of the American Journal of Philology, written by Professor 
Goodwin of Harvard, in which the vexed question of δίκαι 
συμβόλαιαι and their relation to δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων is once 
more discussed. He explains them, not as the same with. 
δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων, i.e. suits brought by a citizen of one 
state against a citizen of another under the rights given by 
a treaty, but, like Boeckh, simply as meaning ‘ suits relating 
to contracts’ or ‘business suits.’ He cites three passages 
from Aristotle’s Politics in which the distinction appears to 
him to be clearly observed :— 

lil, 1. 4. οὐδ᾽ of τῶν δικαίων μετέχοντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ δίκην 
ὑπέχειν καὶ δικάζεσθαι (scil. πολῖται εἰσί): τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπάρχει 
καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ συμβόλων κοινωνοῦσι. 

111..1. 10, καὶ τὰς δίκας δικάζουσι κατὰ μέρος, οἷον ἐν Λακε- 
δαίμονι τὰς τῶν συμβολαίων δικάζει τῶν ἐφόρων ἄλλος ἄλλας. 

li. 5. 11. λέγω δὲ δίκας τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ συμβολαίων 
καὶ ψευδομαρτυριῶν κρίσεις καὶ πλουσίων κολακείας. 

It is clear that in the first of these passages the words 
ἀπὸ συμβόλων refer to relations between those who are not 
citizens of the same state; and συμβόλαια in the two last 
passages to those who are; though the word might apply 
equally to all business suits, whether between citizens of the 
same state or not. 

But (i) it may be remarked that the expression quoted 
from the two latter passages of Aristotle, which Professor 
Goodwin cites for the first time, is not the same with that 
in Thucydides, and therefore does not afford a fair basis of 
argument. There is no reason to doubt that the phrase 


Ixxxvi THUCYDIDES. 


δίκαι al τῶν συμβολαίων or δίκαι περὶ συμβολαίων means “ suits 
about contracts ;’ the dispute is whether quite a different 
phrase, συμβόλαιαι δίκαι, may not also mean ‘suits made 
under treaty regulations’ (ΞΞ δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων) where the 
context favours such an interpretation. 

There is nothing in the words themselves which would 
prevent the use of the two expressions as equivalents. 
Συμβόλαιος, as Platner (Att. Process, p. 111) observes, is an 
adjective formed from σύμβολον, and not from συμβόλαιον, 
though the case-meaning expressed in it is less simple than 
in most adjectives. Now the context in Thucydides re- 
quires that relations between different states should be here 
intended. For he is speaking of something which the allies 
regarded as a grievance imposed upon them, but which the 
Athenians maintain to be a privilege which is granted to 
them ; ‘ For because in our suits with our allies regulated by 
treaty we remit somewhat of our just rights, and allow 
them to be tricd by our own laws, we are supposed to be 
litigious.’ This must be taken in connection with the 
general spirit of the rest of the chapter, which may be 
paraphrased as follows: ‘The Athenians might have used 
force as others (meaning the Lacedaemonians) would have 
done, but they preferred to give their allies legal rights, 
and were therefore thought litigious.’ And these words, it 
may be observed, are only a repetition and stronger incul- 
cation of some other words which have preceded the dis- 
puted phrase: ‘How moderate we are would speedily 
appear if others took our place; indeed, our very modera- 
tion, which should be our glory, has been unjustly converted 
into a reproach.’ Is not the force of the passage greatly 
weakened, if instead of the words ‘ For because in our suits 
with our allies regulated by treaty’ we read ‘ For because 
in suits about contracts’ or ‘in business suits’? For why 
should this act of oppression or privilege, as it was regarded 
from different points of view, affect only business suits and 
not matters of life and death? The word ξυμβολαίαις thus 
becomes almost if not altogether pointless. 

On the other hand, if the speaker is supposed to argue 


i. 77.1. ΣΥΜΒΟΛΑΙ͂ΑΙ ΔΙΚΑΙ͂. Ixxxvii 


‘For in our suits with our allies in which we actually re- 
cognize their rights as independent states’ (implied in our 
concluding treaties with them), the point reappears. 

The phrase δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων means suits made under 
a special agreement or by special regulations between two 
states. But we must admit that the precise regulations 
might be different in different cases, or at different times, 
and it is possible, as Mr. Grote supposes (Part. IT. c. xlvii 
med., note), that ‘suits regulated by treaty’ between Athens 
and her allies existed only under the second Athenian em- 
pire; and that the passage quoted by a grammarian from 
Aristotle, ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀπὸ συμβόλων ἐδίκαζον τοῖς ὑπηκόοις, May 
apply only to this, or, as Professor Goodwin suggests, only 
to the independent allies under the first empire. 

We therefore acknowledge that the argument from the 
context is somewhat weakened by our ignorance of the 
precise nature of δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων. Still the explanation 
of Professor Goodwin gives no force to the words ovp- 
βόλαιαι δίκαι. Even if we admit that ‘suits about con- 
tracts’ are co-extensive with all civil suits, we must again 
ask, Why civil suits, rather than all suits? especially when 
we know from Antiphon de Caede Herodis, § 47, quoted 
by Professor Goodwin himself, that some criminal suits (i.e. 
all capital cases) had to be tried at Athens. And cp. 
C. 1. A. Supp. 27 a, (p. Ixxi, supra). The presumption thus 
raised must be met, not by ὦ priort arguments, but by 
actual evidence that civil suits gave greater offence to the 
allies or were more oppressive to them than criminal ones. 
Even if the words φιλοδικεῖν δοκοῦμεν refer more naturally 
to civil suits, yet other words, βιάζεσθαι, καταναγκάζεσθαι, 
are more applicable to criminal cases. The whole passage 
certainly cannot be narrowed to either. The place from 
the oligarchical author of the De Republica Atheniensium 
(i. 16-18) quoted by Professor Goodwin clearly refers, not 
merely to civil suits as he maintains (p. 16), but to all 
suits : this appears from words of which his translation does 
not give the force (ὃ 16), καὶ τοὺς μὲν rod δήμου σώζουσι, τοὺς 
δ᾽ ἐναντίους ἀπολλύουσιν ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις. ἀπολλύουσι 


Ixxxviil THUCYDIDES. 


surely means in this place ‘they are the death of them,’ 
not merely ‘they plunder them,’ 

For some other aspects of this question see note z# loco. 
An inscription given in Hermes (no. vii. p. 159 ff.; C.I.A. 
vol. ii. pt. i. 11) clearly shows that δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων 
existed between Athens and Phaselis: [rot]s Φασηλίταις τὸ 
ψ[7φ][σμα ἀν]αγράψαι, ὅτι ἂμ μὲ[ν] ᾿Αθ[ήνησι ovpBd]racov 
γένηται [πρὸς Φ]ασηλι[τ]ῶν τινά, ᾿Αθήνησι τὰς δ]ίκας γίγ- 
νεσθαι παρὰ τῷ πολ͵]εμάρχῳ καθάπερ Χ[ίοις καὶ] ἄλλοθι μη- 
δαμοῦ" τῶ[ν δὲ ἄλλων] ἀπὸ ξυμβόλων κατ[ὰ τὰς πρὶν] ξυμβολὰς 
πρὸς Φα[σηλίτας] τὰς δίκας e[iva]i, τὰς [8¢.... Jo. ἀφελεῖν. 
But the inscription is proved by the writing to be later 
than the archonship of Euclides, and therefore does not 
relate to the first Athenian empire, but to a time when 
Phaselis was independent. The words τὰς πρὶν in κατὰ ras 
πρὶν ξυμβολάς are unfortunatcly in brackets, or they might 
be used as a presumption that δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων between 
the Athenians and their allies existcd also under the first 
Athenian empire. 

There is a mention of δίκαι [xa]lra τὰς ξυ[μβο]λάς, at 
joa[y πρὸ τούτου τοῦ χρόνου ὃ] in C.I.A. Supp. 96, a frag- 
ment of a decree relating to the Athenian κληροῦχοι in 
Lesbos (see p. xii. supra), which scems to show that such 
a relation existed between Lesbos and Athens before and 
perhaps after the revolt; but the words are so imperfect 
that no certain inference can be drawn from them. It 
should be observed that in both these inscriptions the word 
is ξυμβολή, not ξύμβολον. 

After all that has been written on this subject the con- 
clusion must be uncertain, and is not materially affected by 
the considerations which Professor Goodwin has adduced. 


NOTE. 


The asterisk, 1)*, a)*, denotes that the explanation of a passage 
to which it is affixed is the explanation adopted in the translation, 


NOTES ON THUCYDIDES. 


BOOK I. 


Θουκυδίδης ᾿Αθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων xail, 1. 
᾿Αθηναίων, ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους. 

ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους is a resumption, or resolution into ἃ 
relative clause, of τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων καὶ ᾿Αθηναίων. The 
meaning is, not ‘in what manner they fought with one another,’ 
but simply ‘their war with one another.’ Or, preserving the 
pleonasm, which gives additional weight to the opening sentence, 
we may translate the whole clause, ‘the war of the Pelopon- 
nesians and Athenians, in which they fought with one another.’ 
There is no stress upon os, which is taken in the less emphatic 
sense of the English ‘ how.’ 


τεκμαιρόμενος, ὅτι ἀκμάζοντές τε ἦσαν ἐς αὐτὸν ἀμφότεροι παρασκευῇ 1. 1. 
τὴ πάσῃ, καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν δρῶν ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους, τὸ μὲν 
εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοουμένον. 

ὁρῶν is parallel in the Greek with ὅτι ἀκμάζοντες ἦσαν, not with 
τεκμαιρόμενος : dpa@v==Kal Gre dopa. καί adds emphasis to the last 
clause of the sentence. Not simply ‘and others who were intending 
to join,’ but ‘ besides others,’ or ‘and there were others.’ 


κίνησις yap αὕτη μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐγένετο καὶ μέρει τινὶ τῶν 1. 2. 
βαρβάρων, ὡς δὲ εἰπεῖν, καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. 

1)* μεγίστη refers, strictly speaking, only to τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. The 
words which follow, μέρει τινὶ τῶν βαρβάρων, and ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων, 
are construed with ἐγένετο and not with μεγίστη, the force of the 
latter word being but slightly felt. Not ‘the greatest movement 

VOL.I. ff B 


I. 2. 


2. 2. 


2 THUCYDIDES. : 


that ever occurred among a certain portion of the barbarians,’ but 
‘the greatest among Hellenes, extending to a portion of the bar— 
barians, and, it may be said, over a great part of the world. The= 
latter clauses furnish proofs of its greatness among the Helleness=™ 
The emphasis, marked by δή, is on μεγίστη, to which the word== 
ov μεγάλα, at the end of the following sentence, are opposed. 

Or 2) making a longer pause at βαρβάρων, ἐπὶ πλεῖστον May“ 
be taken as corresponding to peyiorn; ‘it was the most important # 
movement and also the most universal.’ 

For a similar parallelism cp. i. 23 med. σεισμῶν re πέρι, ot ἐπὶ 
πλεῖστον ἅμα μέρος γῆς καὶ ἰσχυρότατοι οἱ αὐτοὶ ἔπεσχον. 


ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων, ὧν ἐπὶ μακρύτατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαΐίνει, 
ov μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. 

1) ὧν may depend entirely on ἐπὶ μακρότατον, and αὐτοῖς may be 
supplied after πιστεῦσαι. It has been argued (Poppo, 2nd ed. min.) 
that ἐπὶ μακρότατον, not being used elsewhere with the genitive, is not 
likely to be used so here. But the non-occurrence of a phrase in a 
particular construction, especially in one so common as a genitive 
after a superlative, proves nothing against such a use when the 
meaning of the phrase allows. 

2)* ὧν may also be taken as equivalent by attraction to οἷς 
governed by πιστεῦσαι. This has the advantage of giving an 
object to πιστεῦσαι. 

Though the attraction of a dative is unusual, the harshness is in 
this case relieved by the possibility of regarding ὧν in one of 
two other relations, either a) as the genitive after ἐπὶ μακρότατον, 
or 4) as representing the accusative after σκοποῦντι : ἃ σκοποῦντί 


μοι πιστεῦσαι αὐτοῖς ξυμβαίνει. 


τῆς γὰρ ἐμπορίας οὐκ οὔσης, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιμιγνύντες ἀδεῶς ἀλλήλοις οὔτε 
κατὰ γὴν οὔτε διὰ θαλάσσης, νεμόμενοι τε τὰ αὑτῶν ἕκαστοι ὅσον ἀποζῆν, 
καὶ περιουσίαν χρημάτων οὐκ ἔχοντες, οὐδὲ γῆν φντεύοντες, (ἄδηλον ὄν, ὁπότε 
τις ἐπελθὼν καὶ ἀτειχίστων ἅμα ὄντων ἄλλος ἀφαιρήσεται.) τῆς τε καθ᾽ 
ἡμέραν ἀναγκαίου τροφῆς πανταχοῦ ἂν ἡγούμενοι ἐπικρατεῖν, οὐ χαλεπῶς 
ἀπανίσταντο. 


The main divisions of this long period are introduced by τέ 


NOTES, BOOK I. 3 


— εμόμενοί te—rijs Te καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀναγκαίου τροφῆς. The first τέ has 2. 2. 
no connection with the καί which follows. 
“This use of τέ is a relic of the εἰρομένη λέξις (Arist. Rhet. iii. 9. 2) 
w Em ich was the prevailing character of early Greek historical writing. 
IT =—=<«es Of it still remain in the style of Thucydides, though broken 
uy and interfered with, as in this passage, by a more complex 
fo wx” mEnation of the sentence. 


«Ζδειὰ γὰρ ἀρετὴν γῆς αἴ re δυνάμεις τισὶ μείζους ἐγγιγνόμεναι στάσεις ἃ, 4. 

wa -πξοίουν ἐξ ὧν ἐφθείροντο, καὶ ἅμα ὑπὸ ἀλλοφύλων μᾶλλον ἐπεβουλεύοντο. 

“τ εσί has been explained 1)* of persons, 2) of communities. As 
thee is no distinct antecedent to which τισί can be referred, the 
i © s€ is the more natural meaning of it in this passage; the second 

sc<cords better with the general sense, and with the words ἐγγιγνό- 


s2€ arent, στάσεις ἐνεποίουν, ἐφθείροντο, ἐπεβουλεύοντο. 


σὴν γοῦν ᾿Αττικὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον διὰ τὸ λεπτόγεων ἀστασίαστον 2, 5. 
οὗσαν ἄνθρωποι ᾧκουν οἱ αὐτοὶ ἀεί. 
Ξ" ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον is a redundant expression equivalent to 
ἐκ πιλεΐστου χρόνου. 
Or 2) there is a confusion between ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀστασίαστον οὖσαν 
and ἐς τοῦ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀστασίαστον εἶναι. Cp. iv. 63 init. διὰ τὸ ἤδη 
depois παρόντας ᾿Αθηναίους. ν. 7 med. οὐ βουλόμενος αὐτοὺς διὰ τὸ ἐν 
τῷ «ὧν ᾧ καθημένους βαρύνεσθαι. 
, ὍΣ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον used of time cp. ν. 46 init. ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἄριστον 
ας διασώσασθαι τὴν εὐπραγίαν. 


~Ai srapddaypa τόδε τοῦ λόγου οὐκ ἐλάχιστόν ἐστι διὰ τὰς μετοικίας ἐς 2, 5. 
τὰ ἄλλα μὴ ὁμοίως αὐξηθῆναι’ ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος οἱ πολέμῳ ἣ 
TAGE. ἐκπίπτοντες παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίους ol δυνατώτατοι ὡς βέβαιον ὃν ἀνεχώρουν. 

at is the meaning of διὰ τὰς μετοικίας ἐς τὰ ἄλλα μὴ ὁμοίως 
αὐξνγθὴ και} 

1) «That the migrations were the cause why the rest of Hellas’ 
(Flellas as to its other parts) ‘ progressed more slowly’ would give 
the best sense. This mode of taking τὰ ἄλλα is supported by the 

WOrds which follow, ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος. 

But it is difficult to supply τὴν Ελλάδα as the subject, either from 
the general context or by anticipation from the following sentence ; 
B 2 


4 THUCYDIDES. 


2. 5. it is equally difficult to take αὐξηθῆναι as impersonal. And μετοικία 
is only used as the abstract substantive of μέτοικος, not in the 
general sense of change of country. 

2) The subject of αὐξηθῆναι is probably τὴν Ἀττικήν supplied from 
the preceding sentence. 

ἐς τὰ ἄλλα may then be taken either 4) with μὴ ὁμοίως, or 5) with 
αὐξηθῆναι. 

Either a) ‘ Attica increased in population not equally with,’ i.e. 
out of proportion to, ‘ her increase in other respects.’ 

Or 4) ‘ Attica did not increase equally in other respects ’ (com- 
pared with the increase of her population). Cp.i.1 fin. οὐ μέγαλα 
γομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. 

The distinction between increasing in population and increasing 
in wealth corresponds to the opposition of population and natural 
advantages implied throughout, and reappears at the end of the 
chapter in the words μείζω ἔτι ἐποίησαν πλήθει ἀνθρώπων τὴν πόλιν, 
which by implication repeat the statement that Attica increased in 
population rather than in wealth. 

Or 3)* retaining τὴν ’Arrumy as the subject, but taking ra ἄλλα 
nearly in the same sense as in 1), ‘Attica, in respect of other 
parts of Hellas, did not increase equally,’ i.e. increased much 
more. We might have expected πρός, ‘in comparison of,’ in this 
place. But ἐς, which has a more generalized meaning, may also 
be used. 

The steps in the argument are as follows :— 

a) The fertile districts of Hellas were unsettled. 

6) Attica, which was not fertile, was not unsettled, but became a 
powerful and populous country. (This is a proof ἐξ ἐναντίων of the 
connection between fertility and unsettlement.) 

c) And she not only retained her own inhabitants, but received 
the inhabitants of other countries. (This is a further confirmation 
of the same inference.) 

τοῦ λόγου refers to the general argument, which is, according to 1), 
that the prevalence of migration hindered progress in the rest of 
Hellas; according to 2) and 3)*, that the rest of Hellas was in 
fact depopulated through the fertility of the soil. 

διὰ τὰς μετοικίας κιτιλ. is, according to 1), an explanation of τοῦ 


NOTES, BOOK 4. 5 


λόγου; according to 2) and 3)*, an explanation of τόδε. τόδε, ac- 4, 6. 
cording to 1), refers to the following sentence, ἐκ yap τῆς ἄλλης 
Ἑλλάδος «.7.A. 

There is no sufficient ground for altering the text (e.g. by the 
omission of ἐς after μετοικίας, or the change of μετοικίας ἐς into 
perounoes). The uncertainty of meaning is not greater than in 
many other passages. 


κατὰ ἔθνη δὲ ἄλλα τε καὶ τὸ Πελασγικὸν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀφ᾽. ἑαυτῶν τὴν 8. 1. 
ἐπωνυμίαν παρέχεσθαι. 

An indefinite subject has to be supphed with παρέχεσθαι from 
κατὰ ἔθνη ὄλλα τε καὶ τὸ Πελασγικόν : ‘they,’ sc. the various peoples 
of those times. So below, in the words καὶ ἐπαγομένων αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ 
ὠφελίᾳ ἐς τὰς ἄλλας πόλεις. 


οἱ δ᾽ οὖν ὡς ἕκαστοι Ἕλληνες κατὰ πόλεις τε, ὅσοι ἀλλήλων ξυνίεσαν, 8. 4. 
καὶ ξύμπαντες ὕστερον κληθέντες, οὐδὲν πρὸ τῶν Τρωικῶν δὲ ἀσθένειαν 
καὶ ἀμιξίαν ἀλλήλων ἀθρόοι ἔπραξαν. 

1)*. The several Hellenic tribes in whom the consciousness of 
their nationality was not yet awakened are described under two 
aspects, a) as those who had in early times a common language, 
5) as those who were hereafter to have a common name. Strictly 
speaking, οἱ ὡς ἕκαστοι Ἕλληνες is an improper expression which is 
explained away in what follows, the writer remembering that the word 
Ἕλληνες does not yet apply to all those of whom he is speaking. 

Thucydides, according to this way of taking the passage, implies 
that all the tribes of Hellas, though some of them were reckoned 
Pelasgi and barbarians in after ages, and are so called by himself 
in other places (see below), were really of the same race and spoke 
ἃ common language. 

Or 2) the construction is οἱ δ᾽ οὖν ὡς ἕκαστοι Ἕλληνες (κληθέντες) 
κατὰ πόλεις τε (Ἕλληνες κληθέντες) καὶ ξύμπαντες ὕστερον (Ἔλληνες) κλη- 
θέντες. 

Thucydides is in this case summing up his previous account of 
the spread of the name Hellenes (i. 3 med. καὶ ἐπαγομένων αὐτοὺς 
én’ ὠφελίᾳ és τὰς ἄλλας πόλεις, κάθ᾽ ἑκάστους μὲν ἤδη τῇ ὁμιλίᾳ μᾶλλον 
καλεῖσθαι “EAnvas) :—‘Those then who in various ways came to 


ό THUCYDIDES. 


8. 4. bear the name Hellenes, which they did first city by city, as τηδη αν 
as spoke a common language,’ (i.e. the original Hellenes, t-—™ 
whom Thucydides must be held to confine the Hellenic language). 4 
‘and afterwards collectively,’ etc. 

The difference between these two modes of explaining the 
passage turns upon the question whether the word κληθέντες is to be = 
taken with the last clause of the sentence only or with the whole 
sentence. 

1) describes the Hellenes in their several communities who 
spoke a common language before they had a common name. 

2) describes the stages by which the name Hellenes, which had 
been at first confined to a few communities, gradually spread over 
the whole country, and, with the name, the Hellenic language. 

The process by which Thucydides conceived the other tribes of 
Greece to have passed into the Hellenic circle may be illustrated 
by the case of the Amphilochians, ii. 68 init., who, though colonists 
from Argos, are described by him as barbarians, (except such of them 
as had acquired the Hellenic language from the Ambraciots), and 
who were so regarded by their Ambraciot neighbours, iii. 112 fin. 
Again, iv. 109, a Pelasgian race is classed among βάρβαροι δίγλωσσοι. 

Compare the well-known passage in Herodotus, i. 57, 58, ἥντινα 
δὲ γλῶσσαν ἵεσαν οἱ Πελασγοί, οὐκ ἔχω ἀτρεκέως εἶπαι, εἰ δὲ χρεὼν ἐστι 
τεκμαιρόμενον λέγειν τοῖσι νῦν ἔτι ἐοῦσι Πελασγῶν... ... εἰ τούτοισι τεκμαι- 
ρόμενον δεῖ λέγειν, ἦσαν οἱ Πελασγοὶ βάρβαρον γλῶσσαν ἱέντες. εἰ τοίνυν 
ἣν καὶ πᾶν τοιοῦτο τὸ Πελασγικόν, τὸ ᾿Αττικὸν ἔθνος ἐὸν Πελασγικὸν ἅμα τῇ 
μεταβολῇ τῇ ἐς Ἕλληνας καὶ τὴν γλῶσσαν μετέμαθε. 

It is impossible to define with certainty the character of the ‘Pelas- 
gians,’ in their relation to the original Hellenes. The view which on 
the whole these passages of Herodotus and Thucydides indicate is 
that the Pelasgians were a widely-spread race, speaking a barbarous 
language, which they gradually exchanged for the Hellenic lan- 
guage of historical times. Yet Greek does not appear to be formed 
out of different elements; and no considerable traces of another 
language are discernible in it. 

If the Pelasgians were widely spread, their language could not 
have been very different from that of the Hellenes: but if 
Herodotus is right in inferring, from his knowledge of places in 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 7 


τυ αΐϊοῃ the Pelasgians survived, that they spoke ἃ barbarous 8. 4. 
dzmraguage, they cannot be supposed to have been very widely 


«1 fused. 


«δηλοῦσι δὲ τῶν τε ἠπειρωτῶν τινες ἔτι καὶ νῦν, οἷς κόσμος καλῶς τοῦτο 5. 2. 


Fo Pied K.T.A. 
Φκολῶς, ie. successfully: cp. vi. 12 init. οἷς τό re ψεύσασθαι καλῶς 


Ἂς.» PFT ipov κιτλ. 

«Φληίζοντο δὲ καὶ κατ᾽ ἤπειρον ἀλλήλους. 

“Ihe previous part of the chapter has referred to robbers by sea, 5. 3. 
~v Frether islanders or dwellers on the coasts. Thucydides now 
P=2Sses on to speak of robbers by land. 

<~ τοῖς πρῶτοι See note on iii. 17. r. 6. 3. 

eae οἱ πρεσβύτεροι αὐτοῖς τῶν εὐδαιμόνων διὰ τὸ ἁβροδίαιτον οὐ πολὺς 6, 3. 
XP>Semeg ἐπειδὴ χιτῶνάς τε λινοῦς ἐπαύσαντο φοροῦντες, καὶ χρυσῶν τεττίγων 
Oe Poa: κρωβύλον ἀναδούμενοι τῶν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τριχῶν. ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ Ἰώνων 
τοὺς warpeoBurépovs κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενὲς ἐπὶ πολὺ αὕτη ἡ σκευὴ κατέσχε. 

δ. ὡς τὸ ἁβροδίαιτον is to be taken as explaining, ποῖ ἐπαύσαντο, but 
POPmes yes. It may also be connected with οὐ πολὺς χρόνος. Either, 1)* 
‘Te Zs not long since they gave up the luxurious habit of wearing 
ine χὰ garments, etc.: or 2) ‘Their luxurious tastes led them to 


reta iw these practices until quite recently’: or 3) both notions may 


<-combined. ‘They wore this attire, and also long retained it, 


{fOr a love of luxury.’ 
«Ὡς,» of, ‘whence derived.’ 
For the τέττιγες cp. Aristophanes : 
Knights, 1331,— 
G8 ἐκεῖνος ὁρᾶν τεττιγοφόρας, ἀρχαίῳ σχήματι λαμπρός : 
Clouds, 984,— 
ἀρχαῖά γε καὶ Διπολιώδη καὶ rerriyov ἀνάμεστα: 
Where, as in this passage, they are the signs of old-fashioned 
Ventility. 
μετρίᾳ δ᾽ αὖ ἐσθῆτι. καὶ és τὸν νῦν τρόπον πρῶτοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐχρήσαντο, 6, 4. 
καὶ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς οἱ τὰ μείζω κεκτημένοι ἰσοδίαιτοι μάλιστα 


κατέστησαν. 


6. 4. 


8 THUCYDIDES. 


Thucydides traces the outward indications of the process by 
which the Hellenes passed from barbarism to civilization. The 
Athenians first gave up the carrying of arms, and adopted a more 
luxurious style of attire, which has continued until quite recent 
times (διὰ τὸ ἁβροδίαιτον is the resumption of ἐς τὸ τρυφερώτερον). 
But in dress the Lacedaemonians took the lead. Whether they, 
like the Athenians, originally wore the more cumbrous garments 
or not, we are not told by Thucydides; at any rate they were the 
first to introduce the simpler costume of later times. Cp. Arist. 
Pol. iv. 9. 7. 8, ὅπερ συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείαν. πολλοὶ 
γὰρ ἐγχειροῦσι λέγειν ὡς δημοκρατίας οὕσης διὰ τὸ δημοκρατικὰ πολλὰ τὴν 
τάξιν ἔχειν, .. . οὐθὲν γὰρ διάδηλος ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ὁ πένης. οὕτω τὰ περὶ 
τὴν τροφὴν ταὐτὰ πᾶσιν ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις, καὶ τὴν ἐσθῆτα οἱ πλούσιοι 


, Φ “ , , “- , a 
τοιαύτην olay ἄν τις παρασκευάσαι δύναιτο καὶ τῶν πενήτων ὁστισοῦν. 


τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι μὲν νεώτατα ὠκίσθησαν καὶ ἤδη πλωιμωτέρων ὄντων, 
περιουσίας μᾶλλον ἔχουσαι χρημάτων ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς τοῖς αἰγιαλοῖς τείχεσιν 
ἐκτίζοντο, καὶ τοὺς ἰσθμοὺς ἀπελάμβανον ἐμπορίας τε ἕνεκα καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς 
προσοίκους ἕκαστοι ἰσχύος" αἱ δὲ παλαιαὶ διὰ τὴν λῃστείαν ἐπὶ πολὺ 
ἀντισχοῦσαν ἀπὸ θαλάσσης μᾶλλον φκίσθησαν. 

The emphatic part of the passage is the latter sentence, αἱ 
δὲ madaai «.r.rA. The words τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι μὲν vedrara 
φκίσθησαν κιτιλ. are really a partial anticipation of the statement in 
i. 8 med. καὶ of παρὰ θάλασσαν ἄνθρωποι κιτ.λ. 


ἔφερον γὰρ ἀλλήλους τε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσοι ὄντες ov θαλάσσιοι κάτω 
ᾧκουν. 

The nom. to ἔφερον, ‘the men of those days,’ is to be supplied 
from the general connection. 


Δήλου yap καθαιρομένης ὑπὸ ᾿Αθηναίων ἐν τῷδε τῷ πολέμῳ καὶ τῶν θηκῶν 
ἀναιρεθεισῶν, ὅσαι ἦσαν τῶν τεθνεώτων ἐν τῇ νήσῳ, ὑπὲρ ἥμισυ Κᾶρες 
ἐφάνησαν. 

θήκαι, either 1) ‘coffins,’ as θήκη is elsewhere used for a case or 
receptacle, or 2)* as clearly in iii. 58 med. ἀποβλέψατε yap és 
πατέρων τῶν ὑμετέρων θήκας, ‘tombs’ or ‘graves.’ In the latter case 
the word ἀναιρεῖν, which occurs three times in the same connection 
(cp. iii. 104 init. v. 1) is used with a slight inaccuracy. ‘Taking 


NOTES, BOOK 1 9 


up the graves’ means taking up the dead, or the chests which were 8. I. 
in the graves, or digging up the earth. 


ἐφιέμενοι γὰρ τῶν κερδῶν ot τε ἥσσους ὑπέμενον τὴν τῶν κρεισσόνων 8. 3. 
δουλείαν, οἵ τε δυνατώτεροι περιουσίας ἔχοντες προσεποιοῦντο ὑπηκόους 
τὰς ἐλάσσους πόλεις. 

1)* Two indications of this increasing prosperity and stability 
are described:—the poor became more desirous of wealth now 
that there was a way of obtaining it, and the rich having the 
means of coercion subjugated the weaker states. 

In this case there is a grammatical irregularity, for allhough 
the two clauses of re ἥσσους---οἵ re δυνατώτεροι are parallel and 
closely connected by ré—re, ‘the preceding words, ἐφιέμενοι τῶν 
κερδῶν, Only apply to the first of them. 

Or 2) ἐφιέμενοι τῶν κερδῶν may be taken with the whole sentence, 
and expresses the motive by which the poor in their submission 
and the rich in their greed of power were alike actuated. 

We may note the matter-of-fact way in which Thucydides speaks 
of the times between Minos and Agamemnon. 


καὶ ὕστερον τοῖς ἐκγόνοις Ere μείζω ξυνενεχθῆναι, Εὐρυσθέως μὲν ἐν τῇ 9. 2. 
᾿Αττικῇ ὑπὸ Ἡρακλειδῶν ἀποθανόντος, ᾿Ατρέως δὲ μητρὸς ἀδελφοῦ ὄντος 
αὐτῴ, καὶ ἐπιτρέψαντος Εὐρυσθέως, ὅτ᾽ ἐστράτευε, Μυκήνας τε καὶ τὴν 
ἀρχὴν κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ᾿Ατρεῖ" τυγχάνειν δὲ αὐτὸν φεύγοντα τὸν πατέρα διὰ 
τὸν Χρυσίππου θάνατον" καὶ ds οὐκέτι ἀνεχώρησεν Εὐρυσθεύς, βουλομένων 
καὶ τῶν Μυκηναίων φόβῳ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν καὶ ἅμα δυνατὸν δοκοῦντα 
εἶναι, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τεθεραπευκότα, τῶν Μυκηναίων τε καὶ ὅσων Εὐρυ- 
σθεὺς ἦρχε τὴν βασιλείαν ᾿Ατρέα παραλαβεῖν. 

In this cumbrous passage, which is an enlargement of the words 
ἔτι μείζω ξυνενεχθῆναι, are given first in the clause Εὐρυσθέως μὲν... 
*Arpei, to be taken with ξυνενεχθῆναι, the remoter,—and then, in the 
clause ὡς οὐκέτι... τεθεραπευκότα, to be taken with παραλαβεῖν (παρα- 
λαβεῖν reverting to the main construction, the infinitive after λέγουσι), 
the nearer, causes of the accession of Atreus. 

The clause τυγχάνειν... Χρυσίππου θάνατον is a short explanatory 
parenthesis dependent on λέγουσι, which assists the resumption of 
the infinitive construction in παραλαβεῖν. 


| fe) THUCYDIDES. 


The whole passage is an example of an awkward transition 
from the εἰρομένη λέξις to the period. See note on i. 2. 2. 


& μοι δοκεῖ ᾿Αγαμέμνων παραλαβὼν καὶ ναυτικῷ τε dua ἐπὶ πλέον τάν 
ἄλλων ἰσχύσας, τὴν στρατείαν οὐ χάριτι τὸ πλεῖον ἣ φόβῳ ξυναγαγὼν 
“ποιήσασθαι. 

In cases where, as here, καί and τέ occur in the same clause=— 
and one is apparently superfluous, either a) καί is the connecting 
particle, and τέ is equivalent to ‘also’ or ‘too,’ emphasizing the=? 
word preceding it; or 4) as Classen, τέ is the connecting particle, < 
and καί emphasizes the word following it. 

The use of τέ may be compared with that of δέ in xai—ée, which- 
ever explanation is adopted. But the first explanation, as well of 
καί ---τέ as Of xai—de, appears preferable. 

i. 132 med. ἐπυνθάνοντο δὲ καὶ ἐς τοὺς Ἑΐλωτας πράσσειν τι αὐτόν, καὶ ἦν 
δὲ οὔτως. 

ii. 36 init. δίκαιον γὰρ αὐτοῖς, καὶ πρέπον δὲ ἅμα, ἐν τῷ τοιῷδε τὴν 
τιμὴν ταύτην τῆς μνήμης δίδοσθαι. 

vi. 71 fin. πρὶν ἂν ἱππέας τε μεταπέμψωσιν ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν 
αὐτόθεν ξυμμάχων ἀγείρωσιν ... καὶ χρήματα δὲ ἅμα αὐτόθεν τε ξυλλέ- 
ξωνται καὶ παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων ἔλθῃ κιτιλ. 

vii. 56 med. καὶ ἦν δὲ ἄξιος ὁ ἀγὼν κατά τε ταῦτα καὶ ὅτι κιτιλ. 

The occurrence of ἅμα with καὶ δέ in two of these passages may 
suggest the emendation καὶ ναυτικῷ δὲ dua here. 

The clearest examples in Thucydides of xai—ré occurring in 
the same clause are the following : 

vi. 44. 3, καὶ πρός τε τοὺς “Pyyivous λόγους ἐποιήσαντο ἀξιοῦντες 
Χαλκιδέας ὄντας Χαλκιδεῦσιν οὖσι Λεοντίνοις βοηθεῖν. οἱ δὲ οὐδὲ μεθ᾽ ἑτέρων 
ἔφασαν ἔσεσθαι ἀλλ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ᾿Ιταλιώταις ξυνδοκῇ, τοῦτο 
ποιήσειν. ‘Iwo good MSS. omit τέ here. 

vill, 68. 2, καὶ αὐτός τε, ἐπειδὴ τὰ τῶν τετρακοσίων ἐν ὑστέρῳ 
μεταπεσόντα ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐκακοῦτο, ἄριστα φαίνεται τῶν μέχρι ἐμοῦ 
ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τούτων αἰτιαθείς, ὡς ξυγκατέστησε, θανάτου δίκην ἀπολογη- 
σάμενος. 

(See notes on these passages.) 


The word ré in this passage has been doubted on the authority 


9. 3. 


12 THUCYDIDES. 


anacoluthon, the parenthetical character of the preceding clause, 
καὶ γὰρ... τῆς γενομένης, being forgotten. 

Now the occurrence of thig use in lyric and dramatic poetry 
and in Herodotus renders it probable that some vestiges of 
it are still to be found in Thucydides, though it has entirely 
disappeared in the Orators. Many of the passages quoted 
above may be explained away or emended, but not all. The 
obvious correction γέ gives a very poor sense in most of 
them. Taken all together, they are sufficient to defend this 
peculiar use of ré, and are best accounted for on a common 
principle. 

We might also compare the Homeric καί re, or τέ in apodosi : 

I]. ix. 509,— 

τὸν δὲ μέγ᾽ ὥνησαν Kai τ᾽ ἔκλυον εὐχομένοιο. 
Od. xxiii. 13,— 
καί τε χαλιφρονέοντα σαωφροσύνης ἐπέβησαν. 
Il. xx. 28,— 
καὶ δέ τέ μιν καὶ πρόσθεν ὑποτρομέεσκον ὁρῶντες. 
Il. i. 218,— 
ὅς κε θεοῖς ἐπιπείθηται, μάλα τ᾽ ἔκλυον αὐτοῦ. 
Il. v. 350,— 
εἰ δὲ σύ γ᾽ ἐς πόλεμον πωλήσεαι, ἧ τέ σ᾽ ὀίω 
ῥιγήσειν πόλεμόν γε, καὶ εἴ χ᾽ ἑτέρωθι πύθηαι. 

(Theognis 138 is probably a relic of this Epic use,— 

πολλάκι yap δοκέων θήσειν κακόν, ἐσθλὸν ἔθηκε 
καί τε δοκῶν θήσειν ἐσθλὸν ἔθηκε κακόν.) 

But these are only some out of the many uses Οἱ τέ found in 
Homer, and we ought not to explain a later employment of the 
word from a stage of the language in which the meaning of τέ 
is shown by its various uses to have been so much wider and 
more indefinite than it afterwards became. It may be indeed 
that one of these uses of τέ, like that with certain particles and 
pronouns, ὥστε, οἷός re, ἅτε, ἐφ᾽ gre, has survived in Attic; cp. 
also the constant occurrence of ἐπεί re equivalent to ἐπεί, in 
Herodotus. But whether this is really the case or whether the 
use of ré is to be explained, as seems probable in several of 
the places cited above, by some association of thought with a 


NOTES, BOOK I. 13 


suppressed clause (see Hartung, Lehre v. d. Partikeln, 1. i. § 5, 3) 9. 3. 
either preceding or to follow, is uncertain. 

In the present passage of Thucydides ναυτικῷ re dua may mean 
‘with a navy as well as with his ancestral wealth,’ the mention 
of which had preceded; or ‘with a navy and not only with an 
army, of which the previous existence may seem to be implied 
in that of a navy. 

Other peculiar uses of τέ in Thucydides are the following: 

1) τέ owing to a change of construction, or to a confused way 
of expression, appears to be out of place: e.g. i. 16, ἐπεγένετο δὲ 
ἄλλοις τε ἄλλοθι κωλύματα μὴ αὐξηθῆναι, καὶ Ἴωσι, προχωρησάντων ἐπὶ 
μέγα τῶν πραγμάτων Κῦρος καὶ ἡ Περσικὴ ἐξουσία... ἐπεστράτευσε. 

iv. 9 init. ἀσπίσι τε φαύλαις καὶ olovivas ταῖς πολλαῖς. 

iv. 10 init. ἣν ἐθέλωμέν τε μεῖναι καὶ μὴ τῷ πλήθει αὐτῶν κατα- 
πλαγέντες τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ἡμῖν κρείσσω καταπροδοῦναι : cp. also the τέ 
after oidpevos in vi. 85 med., and the τέ after ἀπό in viii. 14 med. 
(quoted below). 

For similar instances in other authors, cp.— 

Herod. ii. 79, καὶ ἀοιδήν τε ταύτην πρώτην καὶ μούνην σφίσι γίγνεσθαι. 

Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 17, καὶ πολλούς τε αὐτὸς ἧκεν ἔχων ἱππέας καὶ πεζούς, 

Plat. Crit. 43 Β, ἐν τοσαύτῃ τε ἀγρυπνίᾳ καὶ λύπῃ. 

Lycurg. in Leocr, 149. 14, ἐπιφανής τε γάρ ἐστι διὰ τὸν ἔκπλουν τὸν 
εἰς Ρόδον καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἣν ἐποιήσατο καθ᾽ ὑμῶν πρός τε τὴν πόλιν 
τὴν τῶν Ῥοδίων καὶ τῶν ἐμπόρων τοῖς ἐπιδημοῦσιν ἐκεῖ. 

(See further Hartung, 1. 1, § 6, 1). 

2) Although τέ has no τέ or καί to answer to it, a corresponding 
clause may be elicited from the context. vi. 6, μάλιστα δ᾽ αὐτοὺς 
ἐξώρμησαν ᾿Εγεσταίων te πρέσβεις παρόντες καὶ προθυμότερον ἐπικαλού- 
μενοι. ὅμοροι γὰρ ὄντες τοῖς Σελινουντίοις κατιλ. . . . ὧν ἀκούοντες οἱ ᾿Αθη- 
ναῖοι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν τε ᾿Εγεσταίων πολλάκις λεγόντων καὶ τῶν 
ξυναγορευόντων αὐτοῖς x.7.A. 

3) It is sometimes difficult or impossible to extract from the 
context a sentence which was intended to follow ré, and the want 
of symmetry is concealed from the reader, and also from the writer 
himself, by a connection of sound, though there is little or no 
connection of sense, with a καί following. 

vii. 20 init. ᾧ εἴρητο καὶ és “Apyos ἀφικομένῳ κατὰ τὸ ξυμμαχικὸν 


14 THUCYDIDES. 


9. 3. παρακαλεῖν ᾿Αργείων τε ὁπλίτας ἐπὶ τὰς vais, καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένην ἐς τὴν 
Σικελίαν ὥσπερ ἔμελλον ἀπέστελλον «.1.X, 

viii. 14 med. τοῖς δ᾽ ὀλίγοις παρεσκεύαστο, Sore βουλήν τε τυχεῖν 
ξυλλεγομένην, καὶ λεγομένων λόγων ἀπό τε τοῦ Χαλκιδέως καὶ ᾿Αλκιβεάδου 
ὡς ἄλλαι τε νῆες πολλαὶ προσπλέουσι, καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς πολιορκίας τῶν ἐν 
τῷ Πειραιῷ νεῶν οὐ δηλωσάντων ἀφίστανται Χῖοι καὶ αὖθις ᾿Ἐρυθραῖοι 
᾿Αθηναίων. 

These passages may also be explained by giving to τέ the 
meaning ‘too.’ 

4) τέ, τέ, Or τέ, καί, are employed to couple two words or clauses 
which, though varying in construction, are parallel in sense, and 
subordinated to the same principal word. Here there is no 
grammatical irregularity. 

Herod. iii. 89, καταστήσας δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ ἄρχοντας ἐπιστήσας, 
ἐτάξατο φόρυυς οἱ προσιέναι κατὰ ἔθνεά τε, καὶ πρὸς τοῖσι ἔθνεσι τοὺς 
πλησιοχώρους προστάσσων, καὶ ὑπερβαίνων τοὺς προσεχέας, ἄλλοισι ἄλλα 
τὰ ἑκαστέρω ἔθνεα νέμων. 

Thuc. iv. 32 init. οἱ δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τοὺς μὲν πρώτους φύλακας, οἷς ἐπέ- 
Spapov, εὐθὺς διαφθείρουσιν ἕν τε ταῖς εὐναῖς ὅτι ἀναλαμβάνοντας τὰ 
ὕπλα καὶ λαθόντες τὴν ἀπόβασιν κιτὰλ. 

vi. 67 fin. μέλλουσι δὲ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις προτέροις ἐπιχειρήσειν ὁ Νικίας 
κατά τε ἔθνη ἐπιπαριὼν ἕκαστα καὶ ξύμπασι τοιάδε παρεκελεύετο. 

vi. 82 fin. δουλείαν δὲ αὐτοί τε ἐβούλοντο καὶ ἡμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπενεγκεῖν. 

vil. 18 init. παρεσκευάζοντο δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐς τὴν ᾿Αττικὴν ἐσβολὴν ol 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ὥσπερ τε προεδέδοκτο αὐτοῖς, καὶ τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ Κοριν- 
θίων ἐπαγόντων κιτλ. 

Vili, 22 init. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ αὐτοῦ θέρους οἱ Χῖοι, ὥσπερ ἤρξαντο, 
οὐδὲν ἀπολείποντες προθυμίας, ἄνευ τε Πελοποννησίων πλήθει παρόντες 
ἀποστῆσαι τὰς πόλεις, καὶ βουλόμενοι ἅμα ὡς πλείστους σφίσι Evyxw- 
δυνεύειν, στρατεύονται K.T.X. 

In this last instance the τέ is also out of place; it should have 
followed ὥσπερ. 

5) The connection of ré—ré or ré—xai may be obscured by 
the substitution of a finite verb for a participle, or—though this 
use is rarer and harsher—of a participle for a finite verb, and 
sO a grammatical irregularity may arise which is partly concealed, 
as in 3), by a connection of sound between τέ and καί. 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 15 


vii. 47 init. τῆς τε Spas τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ταύτης οὔσης, ἐν ἡ ἀσθενοῦσιν 9. 3. 
ἄνθρωποι μάλιστα, καὶ τὸ χωρίον ἅμα, ἐν ᾧ ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο, ἑλῶδες καὶ 
χαλεπὸν ἦν. 

vili. 81 init. of δὲ προεστῶτες ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ καὶ μάλιστα Θρασύβουλος 
ἀεί τε τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης ἐχόμενος, ἐπειδὴ μετέστησε τὰ πράγματα ὥστε 
κατάγειν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, καὶ τέλος ἐπ᾿ ἐκκλησίας ἔπεισε τὸ πλῆθος τῶν 
στρατιωτῶν, καὶ ψηφισαμένων αὐτῶν ᾿Αλκιβιάδῃ κάθοδον καὶ ἄδειαν, πλεύσας 
ὡς τὸν Τισσαφέρνην, κατῆγεν ἐς τὴν Σάμον τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην. 

viii. 95 fin, καὶ ὕστερον οὐ πολλῷ Εὔβοιάν τε ἅπασαν ἀποστήσαντες 
πλὴν ᾿Ωρεοῦ (ταύτην δὲ αὐτοὶ ᾿Αθηναῖοι εἶχον) καὶ τἄλλα τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν 
καθίσταντο. 

iv. 85 med. ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι oldpevol τε παρὰ ξυμμάχους 
καὶ πρὶν ἔργῳ ἀφικέσθαι τῇ γοῦν γνώμῃ ἥξειν καὶ βουλομένοις ἔσεσθαι, κίν- 
δυνόν τε τοσόνδε ἀνεῤῥίψαμεν διὰ τῆς ἀλλοτρίας πολλῶν ἡμερῶν ὁδὸν 
ἰόντες καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόθυμον παρεχόμενοι. 

The difficult place, i. 133, may perhaps be explained either 
in this way, or as in 3). See note. 

αὐτήκοοι δὲ βουληθέντες ἔτι γενέσθαι αὐτοῦ Παυσανίου τι λέγοντος, ἀπὸ 
παρασκευῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ Ταίναρον ἱκέτου οἰχομένου καὶ σκηνησαμένου 
διπλῆν διαφράγματι καλύβην, ἐς ἣν τῶν τε ἐφόρων ἐντός τινας ἔκρυψε, καὶ 
Παυσανίου ὡς αὐτὸν ἔλθόντος καὶ ἐρωτῶντος τὴν πρόφασιν τῆς ἱκετείας 
ἤσθοντο πάντα σαφῶς. 

There is a similar irregularity in Aesch. Ag. 97,— 

τούτων λέξασ᾽ ὅ τι καὶ δυνατὸν 

καὶ θέμις αἰνεῖν, 

παίων τε γενοῦ τῆσδε μερίμνης 

ἣ νῦν τότε μὲν κακόφρων τελέθει κιτὰλ. 

6) τέ, καί, may introduce a like transition from a participial or 
other qualifying clause to an infinitive : 

ill. 94 med. Δημοσθένης δ᾽ ἀναπείθεται κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον ὑπὸ 
Μεσσηνίων ὡς καλὸν αὐτῷ στρατιᾶς τοσαύτης ξυνειλεγμένης Αἰτωλοῖς ἐπι- 
θέσθαι, Ναυπάκτῳ τε πολεμίοις οὖσι, καὶ ἣν κρατήσῃ αὐτῶν, ῥᾳδίως καὶ 
τὸ ἄλλο ἠπειρωτικὸν τὸ ταύτῃ ᾿Αθηναίοις προσποιήσειν. 

iv. 3 fin. τῷ δὲ διάφορόν τι ἐδόκει εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον ἑτέρου μᾶλλον, 
λιμένος τε προσόντος καὶ τοὺς Μεσσηνίουφ οἰκείους ὄντας αὐτῷ τὸ ἀρχαῖον 
καὶ ὁμοφώνους τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις πλεῖστ᾽ ἂν βλάπτειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁρμω- 
μένους, καὶ βεβαίους ἅμα τοῦ χωρίου φύλακας ἔσεσθαι. 


9. 3. 


10. 1. 


16 THUCYDIDES. 


v. 53 med. ἐδόκει δὲ καὶ ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας τὴν ᾿Επίδαυρον τῷ re ᾿Αλει- 
βιάδῃ καὶ τοῖς ᾿Αργείοις προσλαβεῖν, ἣν δύνωνται, τῆς τε Κορίνθου ἕνεκα. 
ἡσυχίας, καὶ ἐκ τῆς Αἰγίνης βραχντέραν ἔσεσθαι τὴν βοήθειαν ἣ Σκύλλαιοι»ν 
περιπλεῖν τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις. 

Here there is a real connection of sense; but a grammaticae== 
irregularity, which again, as in 3) and 5), is concealed by 
connection of sound. 

The words προσποιήσειν--- βλάπτειν and ἔσεσθαι---ἔσεσθαι----τὰ de- — 
pendent upon ἀναπείθεται----ἐδόκει, which must be taken for this 
purpose in a slightly different sense. (Kriiger, note on iv. 3, 3). 

7) τέ qualifies, not the word which it follows, but the whole sen- ~ 
tence, or the principal verb of the sentence. ii. 15. 5, καὶ τῇ 
κρήνῃ τῇ νῦν μέν, τῶν τυράννων οὕτω σκευασάντων, ᾿Ἐννεακρούνῳ καλου- 
μένῃ, τὸ δὲ πάλαι, φανερῶν τῶν πηγῶν οὐσῶν, Καλλιῤῥόῃ ὠνομασμένῃ, 
ἐκείνῃ τε ἐγγὺς οὔσῃ τὰ πλείστου ἄξια ἐχρῶντο, καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ἀρχαίου πρό τε γαμικῶν καὶ ἐς ἄλλα τῶν ἱερῶν νομίζεται τῷ ὕδατι 
χρῆσθαι. For another explanation, see note. 

8) τέ is followed by δέ, not by a second τέ. vii. 78 init. καὶ 
ἐπειδή τε ἐγένοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διαβάσει τοῦ ᾿Ανάπου ποταμοῦ, εὗρον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ 
παρατεταγμένους τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ ξυμμάχων καὶ τρεψάμενοι αὐτοὺς καὶ 
κρατήσαντες τοῦ πόρον ἐχώρουν ἐς τὸ πρόσθεν" οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι παριι- 
πεύοντές τε προσέκειντο καὶ ἐσακοντίζοντες οἱ Ψιλοί. 

Cp. note oni. 1]. 1. 

In viii. 45 med. τέ (which does not occur in the reading of the 
Vatican), a) is out of place, and 4) can only be explained at all by 
supposing a far-fetched connection between the clause in which it 
occurs and that which follows :---τούτων δὲ “Ἑρμοκράτης te ἠναντιοῦτο 
μόνος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ξύμπαντος ξυμμαχικοῦ. τάς te πόλεις δεομένας χρημάτων 


ἀπήλασεν αὐτὸς ἀντιλέγων ὑπὲρ τοῦ Τισσαφέρνους, ὡς k.T.A. 


καὶ ὅτι μὲν Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν ἢ εἴ τι τῶν τότε πόλισμα νῦν μὴ ἀξιόχρεων 
δοκεῖ εἶναι, οὐκ ἀκριβεῖ ἄν τις σημείῳ χρώμενος ἀπιστοίη μὴ γενέσθαι τὸν 
στόλον τοσοῦτον, ὅσον οἵ τε ποιηταὶ εἰρήκασι, καὶ ὁ λόγος κατέχει. 

1) ἦν, sc. ‘ was, while it existed,’ not ‘was, in the heroic times.’ 
Mycenae was destroyed by the Argives in 468 B.c. 

Thucydides is refuting a common argument from the existing 
state of cities: but as Mycenae has ceased to exist he is obliged to 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 17 


ρύνϑα,, f Speak of it in the past tense, and of other cities which had survived 10. 1. 
* ay. from the heroic times in the present. 


Or better, 2)* ἦν may be taken to express the words of the 
Objector, who said, ‘Mycenae was a small place in the heroic 
-- @immes:’ or may have argued generally that other places which had 
“ S axrvived from those times were not of much importance now. 
~4&% <cording to this view the two clauses ὅτε μὲν... ἦν, εἴ re... εἶναι, are 
xz <™ parallel in sense, but the second gives the reason of statements 
Hai Tee the first. ‘Mycenae and similar places could not have been 

Ἄξω προ, for their remains appear so inconsiderable.’ 
In the words οὐκ ἀκριβεῖ ἄν τις σημείῳ κιτιλ. the writer is thinking 
“nly of the second clause; for the evidence which he rejects in 
‘ww hat follows is that drawn, not from the past but from the present 

-. <ondition of ancient cities. 


«--: Λακεδαιμονίων γὰρ εἰ ἧ πόλις ἐρημωθείη, λειφθείη δὲ τά τε ἱερὰ καὶ τῆς 10. 2. 


ΝΣ The word κατασκευή is general, scil. οἷς κατεσκεύασταί τι, and may 
as mean either the furniture of a house, camp, etc., or, as here, the 
a buildings themselves; for these may be regarded as the furniture 


of the ground or foundations upon which they stand. 


ὅμως δὲ οὔτε ξυνοικισθείσης πόλεως οὔτε ἱεροῖς καὶ κατασκευαῖς πολυτελέσι 10. 2. 
χρησαμένης, κατὰ κώμας δὲ τῷ παλαιῷ τῆς Ἑλλάδος τρόπῳ οἰκισθείσης, 
φαίνοιτ᾽ ἂν ὑποδεεστέρα. 

The absence of the article with πόλεως may be explained by sup- 
posing a confusion of the general and particular. In the words 
οὔτε ξυνοικισθείσης πόλεως, Thucydides is speaking of the general 
case ‘when a city is not continuously built,’ etc. : in the latter part 
of the sentence he reverts to the case of Sparta. 

With ὑποδεεστέρα supply ἡ πόλις, either from Λακεδαιμονίων ἡ πόλις 
at the beginning of the sentence, or from οὔτε ξυνοικισθείσης πόλεως. 
According to others, δύναμις is the nominative to be supplied. 


τῆς γὰρ τροφῆς ἀπορίᾳ τόν τε στρατὸν ἐλάσσω ἤγαγον καὶ ὅσον ἤλπιζον 11. 1. 
αὐτόθεν πολεμοῦντα βιοτεύσειν, ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀφικόμενοι μάχῃ ἐκράτησαν (δῆλον 
&é τὸ γὰρ ἔρυμα τῷ στρατοπέδῳ οὐκ ἂν ἐτειχίσαντο) φαίνονται δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ 

VOL. I. c 


11. 2. 


18 THUCYDIDES. 


. ἐνταῦθα πάσῃ τῇ δυνάμει χρησάμενοι, ἀλλὰ πρὸς γεωργίαν τῆς Χερσονήσου 


τραπόμενοι καὶ λῃστείαν, τῆς τροφῆς ἀπορίᾳ. 

The repetition of τῆς τροφῆς ἀπορίᾳ at the beginning and end of 
the same sentence is a curious example of the want of freedom and 
fluency which characterises the style of Thucydides. 

ἐπειδὴ δέ, we should have expected τέ after τόν te στρατόν, but δέ 
is used to express the incidental opposition between the coming of 
so small an army and its first success. 

Cp. Soph. Phil. 1310,— 

τὴν φύσιν δ᾽ ἔδειξας, ὦ τέκνον, 
ἐξ ἧς ἔβλαστες, οὐχὶ Σισύφον πατρός, | 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ᾿Αχιλλέως, ὃς μετὰ ζώντων θ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἦν 
ἥκου᾽ ἄριστα, νῦν δὲ τῶν τεθνηκότων, 
where δέ is used, not τέ, because, as the writer proceeds, the oppo- 
sition between life and death comes more vividly into his mind. 

τὸ yap ἔρυμα κι. The fortification of the camp is said in 
Homer to have been made long afterwards, in the tenth year of 
the war, by the advice of Nestor, Il. vii. 8336-343. 

Its erection is described vii. 433 foll.— 

τεῖχος ἔδειμαν 
πύργους θ' ὑψηλούς, εἷλαρ νηῶν τε καὶ αὐτῶν. 
ἐν δ᾽ αὐτοῖσι πύλας ἐνεποίεον εὖ ἀραρνίας 
ὄφρα & αὐτάων ἱππηλασίη ὁδὸς εἴη" 
ἔκτοσθεν δὲ βαθεῖαν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ τάφρον ὄρνξαν 
εὐρεῖαν, μεγάλην ἐν δὲ σκόλοπας κατέπηξαν. 

Thucydides appears either to have forgotten this passage or to 
have only a confused recollection of it. He may perhaps be 
following a different tradition, or be reasoning ἃ priors, that the 
Greeks must have won a battle before they could have had a 
fortified camp, which he assumes on general grounds that they — 
must have had. 


περιουσίαν δὲ εἰ ἦλθον ἔχοντες τροφῆς καὶ ὄντες ἀθρόοι ἄνευ λῃστείας καὶ 
γεωργίας ξυνεχῶς τὸν πόλεμον διέφερον, ῥᾳδίως ἂν μάχῃ κρατοῦντες efor, 
of γε καὶ οὐκ ἀθρόοι, ἀλλὰ μέρει τῷ ἀεὶ παρόντι ἀντεῖχον. πολιορκίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν 
προσκαθεζόμενοι ἐν ἕλάσσονί τε χρόνῳ καὶ ἀπονώτερον τὴν Τροίαν 
εἷλον. 


NOTES, BOOK I. 19 


1)* ῥᾳδίως dy μάχῃ κρατοῦντες εἷλον, ‘the Greeks might have 11. 2. 
taken Troy by superiority in the field,’ i.e. by storm after a victory: 
πολιορκίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν προσκαθεζόμενοι... τὴν Τροίαν εἷλον, ‘they might have 
taken it by blockade.’ 

The two suppositions are really alternatives, but the writer prefers 
to put them in a conjunctive rather than in a disjunctive form. 

2) The words μάχῃ κρατοῦντες may also be a resumption of μάχῃ 
ἐκράτησαν, at the beginning of the chapter: ‘ having the upper hand 
in the field, they would easily have taken the place’ (i.e. if they 
had brought plenty of provisions, etc.), ‘for, as it was, detachments 
of them were a match for the whole Trojan force ; but in that case 
they would have blockaded Troy and taken the place in less time 
and with less trouble.’ πολιορκίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν προσκαθεζόμεμοι becomes an 
expansion of the previous εἷλον. δέ expresses the opposition 
between a part of the army, mentioned in the words which imme- 
diately precede, and the whole of the army, which would have 
been required for the investment of the city. 

3) Classen proposes to connect the clause πολιορκίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν προσ- 
καθεζόμενοι closely with the preceding words,—‘ who, even although 
divided, maintained their ground with the detachments present at 
any one time, and if they had regularly blockaded Troy (even 
divided as they were) would have taken it in less time. and with 
less trouble.’ 

But a) the transition is too abrupt. We should have expected 
rather εἰ δὲ καὶ ἠθέλησαν πολιορκίᾳ προσκαθέζεσθαι. 

And 8) it is clear from the sense that the words πολιορκίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν 
προσκαθεζόμενοι are to be connected with περιουσίαν δ᾽ εἰ ἦλθον x.7.A., 
not with οὐκ ἀθρόοι ἀλλὰ μέρει τῷ del παρόντι. The blockade might 
have been possible if the army had kept together, but the idea of a 
blockade is out of harmony with the main thought of the preceding 
clause, in which the Greek army is represented as divided. 

Upon supposition either 1)* or 2), the clause περιουσίαν δ᾽ εἰ 
ἦλθον ἔχοντες τροφῆς... ξυνεχῶς τὸν πόλεμον διέφερον applies to all that 
follows down to τὴν Τροίαν εἷλον. 


ἦν δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποδασμὸς πρότερον ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ, ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ ἐς Ἴλεον 12. 3. 
ἐστράτευσαν. 
ς 2 


12. 3. 


18. 1. 


13. 3. 


20 THUCYDIDES. 


1) ἀφ᾽ ὧν καί marks the natural correlation between Boeotians 
dwelling in Boeotia and the account in Homer of their going to 
Troy. Or 2) καί may refer to the previous statement in i. 10 fin. 
πεποΐηκε γὰρ χιλίων καὶ διακοσίων νεῶν, τὰς μὲν Βοιωτῶν εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν 
ἀνδρῶν, ‘and these were the Boeotians of whom a detachment fought 
at Troy.’ Cp. IL ii. 494 foll. 

The mention of the ἀποδασμός is introduced in order to re- 
concile the Homeric account with the tradition that the Boeotians 
did not migrate from Thessaly into Boeotia until after the 
Trojan war. No other Boeotians are known to Homer. 


Suvarwrépas δὲ γιγνομένης τῆς Ἑλλάδος καὶ τῶν χρημάτων Thy κτῆσιν 
ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον ποιουμένης, τὰ πολλὰ τυραννίδες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι 
καθίσταντο, τῶν προσόδων μειζόνων γιγνομένων (πρότερον δὲ ἦσαν ἐπὶ 
ῥητοῖς γέρασι πατρικαὶ βασιλεῖαι.) 

The words ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον refer to i. 8 med. οἱ παρὰ 
θάλασσαν ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον ἤδη τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν χρημάτων ποιούμενοι, and 
indicate a further progress in the same direction. 

τῶν προσόδων iS a repetition or resumption of τῶν χρημάτων in a 
more definite form. The increase of revenue is the natural result 
of the increasing pursuit of wealth. ‘The Hellenes engaged still 
more in .the pursuit of wealth, and, as their revenues became 
greater, tyrannies began to be established.’ Ini. 2 med. the increase 
of wealth has been already noticed as a cause of στάσις. 

In a similar strain of reflection Thucydides spoke of the desire of 
Minos to protect his revenue as his chief motive in putting down 
the pirates; i. 4. 

πατρικαὶ βασιλεῖαι. Such as Homer describes or such as Aristotle 
recognises, κατὰ νόμον καὶ rarpixai, still existing among barbarians. 
Cp. Pol. iii. 14. 6. It is observable that Thucydides speaks as 
if the tyrannies immediately succeeded the hereditary monarchies, 
taking no notice of the intervening oligarchies. 


ἔτη δ᾽ ἐστὶ μάλιστα τριακόσια ἐς τὴν τελευτὴν τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου K.T.A. 

With numbers, μάλιστα appears to signify neither ‘at most,’ nor 
‘at least :’ for neither of these senses accords with all the passages. 
In vii. 80 med. τὸ ἥμισυ μάλιστα καὶ πλέον, it cannot mean ‘at most :’ 


NOTES, BOOK I. δι 


in i. 118 init. where ἔτη πεντήκοντα μάλιστα is actually forty-nine 18. 3. 
years, it cannot mean ‘at least.’ 

Hence, generally, ‘about,’ ‘as near as we can get to the number,’ 
‘upon reflection we can only say :’ or ‘ with as much accuracy as 
it is worth while to obtain.’ Thus the word has the appearance 
both of precision and of want of precision. 


φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ταῦτα πολλαῖς γενεαῖς ὕστερα γενόμενα τῶν Τρωικῶν 14, 1. 
τριήρεσι μὲν ὀλίγαις χρώμενα, πεντηκοντόροις δ' ἔτι καὶ πλοίοις μακροῖς 
ἐξηρτυμένα ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνα. 

πλοίοις μακροῖς. These vessels are called μακρά to indicate that 
they were ships of war, and πλοῖα, not νῆες, to indicate their rude 
construction. So πλοῖα μακρά are the ships or galleys of war used 
before the invention of triremes. 


ταῦτα yap τελευταῖα πρὸ τῆς Ξέρξου στρατείας ναυτικὰ ἀξιόλογα ἐν τῇ 14, 2. 
Ἑλλάδι κατέστη. Αἰγινῆται γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, καὶ εἶ τινες ἄλλοι, βραχέα 4. 
ἐκέκτηντο, καὶ τούτων τὰ πολλὰ πεντηκοντόρους" ὀψέ τε, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ᾿Αθηναίους 
Θεμιστοκλῆς ἔπεισεν Αἰγινήταις πολεμοῦντας, καὶ ἅμα τοῦ βαρβάρου προσδο- 
κίμου ὄντος, τὰς ναῦς ποιήσασθαι, αἷσπερ καὶ ἐναυμάχησαν᾽ καὶ αὗται οὕπω 
εἶχον διὰ πάσης καταστρώματα. 

τούτων refers grammatically to βραχέα, scil. ναυτικά, but, in meaning, 
to the ships which composed these navies. 

ὀψέ read of. To repeat either ἐκέκτηντο or βραχέα ἐκέκτηντο with 
ὀψέ re will not give the sense required. For the Athenians hada 
fleet before the time of Themistocles, and they had, not a small 
fleet, βραχὺ vavrixdy, but a considerable one afterwards. 

Either 1)* we may take ὀψέ re with καὶ αὗται οὔπω εἶχον x.r.d., καί 
emphasizing αὗται and marking the apodosis; or 2) ἦν may be 
supplied with ὀψέ. In either case the ἀφ᾽ od is to be accounted for 
by a confusion of ὀψέ re ἐπειδή with od πολὺς χρόνος ad’ οὗ. The 
confusion is not greater than in the converse phrase usually 
compared, οὐ πολὺς χρόνος ἐπειδή, i. 6 init. 

καί emphasizes ἐναυμάχησαν either with a reference to τοῦ βαρβάρον 
προσδοκίμον (ὄντος, ‘with which they actually fought against him 
when he came, or ‘which they not only built, but fought in 
them.’ 


1δ. 2. 


16. I. 


17. 


18. 1. 


22 THUCYDIDES. 


κατὰ γὴν δὲ πόλεμος, ὅθεν τις καὶ δύναμις παρεγένετο, οὐδεὶς ξυνέστη" 
πάντες δὲ ἦσαν ὅσοι καὶ ἐγένοντο πρὸς ὁμόρους τοὺς σφετέρονς ἑκάστοις. 

καί in both clauses implies a limitation: @) ‘a war, not simply 
a war, but a war whence power accrued;’ 4) ‘all the wars, so far 
as there were any, which occurred.’ 


Ἐπεγένετο δὲ ἄλλοις τε ἄλλοθε κωλύματα μὴ αὐξηθῆναι, καὶ “leon, 
προχωρησάντων ἐπὶ μέγα τῶν πραγμάτων Κῦρος, καὶ ἡ Περσικὴ ἐξουσία, 
Κροῖσον καθελοῦσα καὶ ὅσα ἐντὸς "AAvos ποταμοῦ πρὸς θάλασσαν, ἑπεστρά- 
τευσε. 

τέ follows ἄλλοις as though Ἴωσι were intended to be taken with 
ἐπεγένετο, but as the sentence proceeds the original construction is 
forgotten, and another verb, ἐπεστράτευσε, is supplied. 


ἐπράχθη τε an’ αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ἔργον ἀξιόλογον, et μὴ εἴ τι πρὸς περιοίκους 
τοὺς αὑτῶν ἑκάστοις. οἱ γὰρ ἐν Σικελίᾳ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐχώρησαν δυνάμεως. 

yap implies a confirmation of εἰ μὴ εἴ τι πρὸς περιοίκους τοὺς αὑτῶν 
ἑκάστοι. The only noteworthy actions of the Greek tyrants were . 
wars with their neighbours. For the Sicilian tyrants, e.g. Hippo- 
crates, Gelo, Thero, Hiero (who did encroach upon their neighbours) 
attained the greatest power of any. 

But it is not quite clear whether r)* Thucydides means to 
say that the tyrants did no noteworthy action, but only fought 
with their neighbours; or whether 2) he includes their border 
wars under the head of noteworthy actions. In the latter case, he 
would mean that these border wars became noteworthy when they 
were carried on, as by the Sicilian tyrants, on a great scale. 


᾿Επειδὴ δὲ of re ᾿Αθηναίων τύραννοι καὶ of τῆς ἄλλης ‘EAAdSos ἐπὶ πολὺ 
καὶ πρὶν τυραννευθείσης οἱ πλεῖστοι, καὶ τελευταῖοι πλὴν τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ, 
ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων κατελύθησαν K.T.d. 

1)* πλεῖστοι, most, not all: the words which follow, πλὴν τῶν ἐν 
Σικελίᾳ, explain who the others were. 

Or 2) πρίν may refer to the following, not to the preceding 
words: οἱ πλεῖστοι may then be taken to mean ‘more than there 
ever were before,’ and will answer to ἐπὶ πολὺ καὶ πρίν. ‘ Hellas, 
which of old had many tyrants, had now many more than ever, 
and these were the last.’ 


NOTES, BOOK I. 23 


In either case the words πλὴν τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ, which are a re- 18. 1. 
sumption of οἱ yap ἐν Σικελίᾳ at the end of the last chapter, are only 
to be taken with τελευταῖο. The great overthrow of the tyrants 
by Sparta was also the end of them in Greece itself, although in 
Sicily they still continued. 


κοιγῇ τε ἀπωσάμενοι τὸν βάρβαρον ὕστερον ov πολλῷ διεκρίθησαν πρός 18. 2. 
ve ᾿Αθηναίους καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους of τε ἀποστάντες βασιλέως Ἕλληνες καὶ 
οἱ ξυμπολεμήσαντες. 

κοινῇ ἀπωσάμενοι τὸν βάρβαρον does not apply to both ἀποστάντες 
and ξυμπολεμήσαντες. It is a nominative absolute, referring to οἱ 
Ἕλληνες of the next clause taken in a more general sense. 

The meaning of of ξυμπολεμήσαντες is uncertain. 

1) ‘The states were divided, and took sides with the Athenians 
and Lacedaemonians, as well those which refused allegiance to the 
King, as those which in the Persian war fought on his side,’ 
i.e. the Thessalians, Boeotians, and, in the battle of Plataea, the 
Phocians, besides the subject Hellenes of Asia Minor and the 
islands; οἱ ξυμπολεμήσαντες (βασιλεῖ) will then answer to οἱ ἀπο- 
στάντες βασιλέως. But this use of ἀποστάντες in the sense of ‘ those 
who refused allegiance to the King’ is very harsh and hardly 
defensible. 

Better 2)*, ‘The allied Hellenic forces who took part in the 
war’ are opposed to ‘the Hellenes who,’ like the Ionians, ‘ revolted 
from the King,’ after the war. This is confirmed by the com- 
parison of τῶν ξυμπολεμησάντων Ἑλλήνων just above. 

The division is in neither case exhaustive, but the writer’s love of 
antithesis blinds him to the flaw. We find the distinction between 
the original members and the more recent adherents of the con- 
federacy in the following passages :— 

Herod. ix. 106, καὶ οὕτω δὴ Σαμίους re καὶ Χίους καὶ Αεσβίους καὶ 
τοὺς ἄλλους νησιώτας οἱ ἔτυχον συστρατευόμενοι τοῖσε Ἕλλησι, ἐς τὸ 
συμμαχικὸν ἐποιήσαντο. 

Thuc. i. 89 med. of δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ of ἀπὸ ᾿Ιωνίας καὶ Ἑλλησπόντου 
ξύμμαχοι ἤδη ἀφεστηκότες ἀπὸ βασιλέως «rr. 

i. 95 init. of re ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες ἤχθοντο καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα οἱ “loves καὶ ὅσοι 
ἀπὸ βασιλέως νεωστὶ ἠλευθέρωντο. 


19. 


24 THUCYDIDES. 


καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς és τόνδε τὸν πόλεμον ἡ ἰδία παρασκευὴ μείζων ds τὰ 
κράτιστά ποτε μετὰ ἀκραιφνοῦς τῆς ξυμμαχίας ἤνθησαν. 

1) Grote (part ii. ch. xliv. note) refers αὐτοῖς to the Athenians and 
Lacedaemonians, ἀκραιφνὴς ξυμμαχία to the alliance of both against 
Persia, and ἰδία to the separate armaments of the two confederacies. 
But, although both Athens and Lacedaemon. are described by 
Thucydides as ἀκμάζοντες ἐς τὸν πόλεμον ἀμφότεροι παρασκενῇ τῇ πάσῃ 
(i, 1 init.), and as having got over the losses which they had 
respectively sustained, the Lacedaemonians by the revolt of the 
Helots, the Athenians by the loss of Boeotia etc., and the diminu- 
tion of their own population in war (ii. 8 init. τότε δὲ καὶ νεοτὴς πολλὴ 
μὲν οὖσα ἐν τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ, πολλὴ δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις «.7.d.), still the 
individual power of Sparta at the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war could not be compared with the united force of the Hellenes 
who fought against the Persian. 

2) If we suppose that the Athenians alone are referred to in 
αὐτοῖς, and are the subject of ἤνθησαν, ἀκραιφνὴς ξυμμαχία relates to 
the Athenian alliance as it stood before the loss of Boeotia, Phocis, 
and Locris in 447, and of Megara in 445, ‘while the confederacy 
remained intact,’ and ἰδία to the power of Athens excluding that 
of her independent allies, Chios and Lesbos. On behalf of this 
interpretation it may be urged that the words ἀκραιφνὴς ξυμμαχία 
apply more naturally to the confederacy of Athens before the 
Thirty Years Truce than to the whole body of Hellenic states 
who fought against Persia. The ξύμμαχοι of Athens and Lace- 
daemon have been spoken of in the words immediately preceding : 
the confederacy against Persia is called ὁμαιχμία, or of ξυμπολεμή- 
σαντες, NOt ξυμμαχία. But it may be objected that this reference 
to the events previous to the Peace of Euboea is obscure without 
further explanation. 

3)* It is possible to take μετὰ ἀκραιφνοῦς τῆς ξυμμαχίας ἤνθησαν, 
as Grote does, of the Athenians and Lacedaemonians allied against 
Persia, but to restrict αὐτοῖς to the Athenians. ‘The Athenians 
singly were more powerful than the united confederacy had formerly 
been.’ The growth of Athens was far more striking than that of 
Sparta, and it is therefore more natural that Thucydides should 
dwell upon it. Though αὐτοῖς refers to the Athenians alone, ἤνθησαν 


NOTES, BOOK I. 25 


may easily be explained of both the Athenians and Lacedae- 19. 
monians. 

4) Or ἤνθησαν as well as αὐτοῖς may be confined to the Athenians, 
referring to the short time during which they were the leaders of 
the entire Hellenic confederacy against Persia. 


τὰ μὲν οὖν παλαιὰ τοιαῦτα εὗρον, χαλεπὰ ὄντα παντὶ ἑξῆς τεκμηρίῳ 20. I. 
πιστεῦσαι. 

The meaning of this passage turns on the question, What is the 
direct object of πιστεῦσαι What is it which is ‘hard to believe’ or 
‘to trust?’ 

It may be either 1)* the writer’s account of early times, supplied 
from τὰ παλαιὰ τοιαῦτα εὗρον, or 2) the evidence on which it rests, 
παντὶ τεκμηρίῳ. 

According to 1)* παντὶ ἑξῆς τεκμηρίῳ is either instrumental dative, 
or dative after πιστεῦσαι, which thus takes a double construction, 
παντὶ τεκμηρίῳ πιστεῦσαι (αὐτά). The words may then have two 
shades of meaning. Either a)* ‘when men have the whole proof 
set forth in order,’ i.e. the ignorant impatience of mankind rejects 
regular historical proofs and prefers popular traditions or the stories 
of poets; or 4) ‘with the whole proof set forth in order,’ i.e. ‘even 
when the whole proof is set forth in order,’ i.e. whatever be the 
care taken in setting forth the historical evidence, the minds of 
men turn aside into the paths of romance. 

According to 2) τεκμηρίῳ is dative after πιστεῦσαι; χαλεπὰ ὄντα 
πιστεῦσαι means ‘they are hard,’ i.e. ‘of a nature that makes it 
hard, for any one to trust the several pieces of evidence. What 
follows illustrates the difficulty of obtaining trustworthy evidence. 

According to 1)* the construction of χαλεπὰ πιστεῦσαι is simple, 
‘hard to believe,’ and that of παντὶ τεκμηρίῳ is somewhat harsh. 
According to 2) the construction of παντὶ ἑξῆς τεκμηρίῳ becomes 
easy, and that of χαλεπὰ πιστεῦσαι, χαλεπὰ ὥστε πιστεῦσαί τινα, 
is singular. 

Or 3), laying the stress on παντὶ ἑξῆς τεκμηρίῳ, ‘it is difficult to 
bring together all the proofs in order so as to make the account 
credible.’ More literally, ‘they are difficult for a man to have all 
the proofs of them set out in order, and so to believe them.’ 


26 THUCYDIDES. 


20. 1. πιστεῦσαι, scil. ὥστε πιστεῦσαί τινα αὑτοῖς. τεκμηρίῳ, instrumental 


20. 2. 


20. 3. 


dative. 

This interpretation, though combining the two harsh construc- 
tions, gives on the whole the best sense. For the difficulty lies, 
after all, not in the reader accepting the proofs if he could have 
them regularly set out in order, but in the writer being able to 
collect such proofs as will satisfy him. 


βουλόμενοι δέ, πρὶν ξυλληφθῆναι ὃράσαντές τι, καὶ κινδυνεῦσαι «.7.A. 

δράσαντες, NOt κινδυνεῦσαι, is the emphatic word; and πρὶν ξυλ- 
ληφθῆναι follows δράσαντές τι, nOt κινδυνεῦσαι: ‘to do something 
before they were apprehended, and so to run the risk,’ or, ‘and 
then to take their chance.’ κινδυνεῦσαι seems inappropriate when 
Harmodius and Aristogiton were in peril already, but really ap- 
plies to the greater peril which threatened them if they were taken. 

Compare, for this strong sense of κίνδυνος, i. 32 fin. καὶ ἅμα μέγας 
ὃ κίνδυνος εἰ ἐσόμεθα tn’ αὐτοῖς, iii. 59 med. ὅπερ δὲ ἀναγκαῖόν re καὶ 
χαλεπώτατον τοῖς ὧδε ἔχουσιν, λόγον τελευτᾷν, διότι καὶ τοῦ βίου ὃ κίνδυνος 
ἐγγὺς per atrov. The Corcyraeans and Plataeans in these cases 
were already in danger, but still may be described as threatened by 
a greater danger. 

Compare also iil. 49. 4, mapa τοσοῦτον μὲν ἡ Μντιλήνη ἦλθε κινδύνου, 
and note, vii. 2 fin. παρὰ τοσοῦτον μὲν Συράκουσαι ἦλθον κινδύνου. 


ὥσπερ τούς τε Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλέας μὴ μιᾷ ψήφῳ προστίθεσθαι 
ἑκάτερον, ἀλλὰ δνοῖν. ᾿ 

Supply with προστίθεσθαι either ψῆφον (cp. note on iii. 59. 1), or 
γνώμην, or, translate ‘add themselves to a side,’ i.e. vote. 

Cp. Herod. vi. 57, καὶ παρίζειν βουλεύουσι τοῖσι γέρουσι, ἐοῦσι δνῶν 
δέουσι τριήκοντα᾽ ἣν δὲ μὴ ἔλθωσι, τοὺς μάλιστά σῴφι τῶν γερόντων προσ- 
ἥκοντας ἔχειν τὰ τῶν βασιλέων γέρεα, δύο ψήφους τιθεμένους, τρίτην δέ, 
τὴν ἑωυτῶν, where, however, Herodotus is really speaking only of 
voting in the absence of the kings by their representatives, who 
give two votes, one for each of the kings, and a third vote, or 
more correctly two third votes, for themselves. He does not say 
that they gave two votes each; and it is evidently unlikely that in 
a passage which describes the prerogatives of the Spartan kings 


NOTES, BOOK I. 27 


he should only have incidentally indicated a power so important by 20. 3. 
mentioning what was done in their absence. 


οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας. 20. 3. 
Cp. Aristophanes, Danaides, Fragm. (250. 9),— 


οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἀταλαιπώρως ἡ ποίησις διέκειτο. 


καὶ ὁ πόλεμος οὗτος, καίπερ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐν ᾧ μὲν ἂν πολεμῶσι, τὸν 2], 2. 
παρόντα ἀεὶ μέγιστον κρινόντων, παυσαμένων δὲ τὰ ἀρχαῖα μᾶλλον θαυμα- 
ζόντων κιτλ. 

Literally, ἐν ᾧ μὲν ἂν πολεμῶσι, ‘as long as they may be fighting,’ 
not ‘in whatever war they may be engaged.’ The words taken 
thus answer better to παυσαμένων δέ. 


καὶ ὅσα μὲν λόγῳ εἶπον ἕκαστοι ἣ μέλλοντες πολεμήσειν, ἣ ἐν αὐτῷ ἤδη BB. 1 
dvres, χαλεπὸν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν αὐτὴν τῶν λεχθέντων διαμνημονεῦσαι ἦν ἐμοί re 
ὧν αὐτὸς ἤκουσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοθέν ποθεν ἐμοὶ ἀπαγγέλλουσιν. 
ἄλλοθεν, not ‘from some other source as distinct from myself,’ 
which is already implied in the sense of the words τοῖς ἐμοὶ ἀπαγγέλ- 
Aovow, but generally ‘from any,’ or ‘whatever source,’ as in the 
well-known usage of ἄλλος in Plato and elsewhere. 
Cp. iii. 19 fin. αὐτός re διαφθείρεται καὶ τῆς ἄλλης στρατιᾶς πολλοί. 
Soph. O. T. 7,— 
ἀγὼ δικαιῶν μὴ παρ᾽ ἀγγέλων, τέκνα, 
ἄλλων ἀκούειν αὐτὸς ὧδ᾽ ἐλήλυθα. 
Eur. Or. 532,— 
τί μαρτύρων 
ἄλλων ἀκούειν δεῖ μ᾽, ἅ γ᾽ εἰσορᾷν mapa ; ' 


τὰ δ᾽ ἔργα τῶν πραχθέντων ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ παρατυχόντος ΔΆ. 2. 
πυνθανόμενος ἠξίωσα γράφειν, οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἐμοὶ ἐδόκει, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς τε αὐτὸς παρῆν, 
καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελθών. 

τὰ ἔργα τῶν πραχθέντων, the actual facts, contrasted with the λόγοι 
just mentioned. 

ἃ ἐπεξῆλθον might have.been written ‘for ἐπεξελθών OF αὐτός re 
παραγενόμενος for οἷς re αὐτὸς παρῆν. ‘I narrated only what I saw, 
and what I learnt by accurate inquiry from others.’ In order to 
provide a construction for παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων, either πυνθανόμενος is to 


22. 4. 


23. 1 


24. 4. 


25. 4. 


28 THUCYDIDES. 


be repeated from the preceding words, or the sense of πυνθανόμενος 
must be supplied from ἐπεξελθών. 


ὅσοι δὲ βουλήσονται τῶν τε γενομένων τὸ σαφὲς σκοπεῖν καὶ τῶν peh- 
λόντων ποτὲ αὖθις κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπειον τοιούτων καὶ παραπλησίων ἔσεσθαι, 
ὠφέλιμα κρίνειν αὐτὰ ἀρκούντως ἕξει. 

Supply τούτους with κρίνειν, not τούτοις with ἀρκούντως ἔξει or with 
ὠφέλιμα, and take τῶν μελλόντων as governed by τὸ σαφὲς σκοπεῖν, 
‘to have present to their eyes the exact facts.’ κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπειον, 
‘according to the law of human affairs.’ : 

τῶν μελλόντων does not precisely correspond to τῶν γενομένων as 
‘the future’ to ‘the past,’ but is qualified by τοιούτων καὶ παραπλησίων 
ἔσεσθαι, ‘of the past and of that which may be expected to resemble 
the past in the future (ποτὲ αὖθις). The expression thus modified 
agrees better with τὸ σαφὲς σκοπεῖν, which would not, strictly speak- 
ing, apply to future events. 


τῶν δὲ πρότερον ἔργων μέγιστον ἐπράχθη τὸ Μηδικόν. 
These words refer back to the end of i. 21. 


᾿Επίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις ἐν δεξιᾷ ἐσπλέοντι τὸν Ἰόνιον κόλπον. 

Literally, ‘there is ἃ city Epidamnus.’ Cp. i. 126 init. Κύλων 
ἦν ᾿Ολυμπιονίκης. , 

στασιάσαντες δὲ ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἔτη πολλά, ὡς λέγεται, Grd πολέμου τινὸς 
τῶν προσοίκων βαρβάρων ἐφθάρησαν καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως τῆς πολλῆς ἐστερή- 
θησαν. 

Thucydides does not clearly express whether 1)* a period of 
faction was simply followed by a war with the barbarians (ἀπὸ 
πολέμου being taken with ἐφθάρησαν) or whether Υ̓͂ 

2) There was any connection between the war and the civil 
commotion, either @) the war giving rise to the faction (στασιά- 
σαντες being joined with ἀπὸ πολέμου), or 4) the faction giving rise 
to the war (ἀπὸ πολέμου being again taken with ἐφθάρησαν) ; cp. 
below § 5, where the aristocratic party join the barbarians. 


οὔτε γὰρ ἐν πανηγύρεσι ταῖς κοιναῖς διδόντες γέρα τὰ νομιζόμενα, οὔτε 
Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρὶ προκαταρχόμενοι τῶν ἱερῶν, ὥσπερ αἱ ἄλλαι ἀποικίαι, 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 29 


περιφρονοῦντες δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ χρημάτων δυνάμει ὄντες κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν 96, 4, 
χρόνον ὁμοῖα τοῖς Ἑλλήνων πλουσιωτάτοις καὶ τῇ ἐς πόλεμον παρασκευῇ 
δυνατώτεροι, ναυτικῷ δὲ καὶ πολὺ προέχειν ἔστιν ὅτε ἐπαιρόμενοι, καὶ 
κατὰ τὴν τῶν Φαιάκων προενοίκησιν τῆς Κερκύρας κλέος ἐχόντων τὰ 
wept τὰς ναῦς. 

οὔτε γάρ κτλ. The finite verb is forgotten in the participial 
clauses which follow: διδόντες --- προκαταρχόμενοι----περιφρονοῦντες ---- 
ὄντες ὁμοῖα--- ἐπαιρόμενοι. The thread of the sentence which, if 
regular, would have ended in some such words as αἰτίαν εἶχον πρὸς 
τῶν Κορινθίων, is resumed at the beginning of the next chapter, 
πάντων οὖν τούτων ἐγκλήματα ἔχοντες οἱ Κορίνθιοι. 

The word κατάρχεσθαι is applied to any of the various cere- 
monies with which a sacrifice was commenced. One of these was 
the practice of cutting a lock of hair from the victim’s head: so 
ἀπάρχεσθαι. 

1)* The meaning of ἀνδρὶ Κορινθίῳ προκαταρχόμενοι τῶν ἱερῶν is 
best explained by Classen from Hom. Il. iii. 273,— 

ἀρνῶν ἐκ κεφαλέων τάμνε τρίχας, αὗταρ ἔπειτα 
κήρυκες Τρώων καὶ ᾿Αχαιῶν νεῖμαν ἀρίστοις. 

(Cp. the Scholiast on this passage of Thucydides, διδόντες τὰς 
καταρχάς). 

The meaning will then be ‘assigning the firstfruits’ (i. e. the 
τρίχες) ‘of the victim to a representative of Corinth before the rest,’ 
that he might throw them into the sacrificial fire, or more literally, 
‘ taking the firstfruits of the victim,’ or ‘commencing the sacrifice 
for a representative of Corinth before the rest;’ Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρί being 
a dativus commodi. Cp. Od. iii. 444,— 

γέρων & ἱππηλάτα Νέστωρ 
χέρνιβά τ᾽ οὐλοχύτας τε κατήρχετο᾽ πολλὰ δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνῃ 
εὔχετ᾽ ἀπαρχόμενος, κεφαλῆς τρίχας ἐν πυρὶ βάλλων. 

It must be admitted, however, that the passage from II. ili. is not 
wholly parallel, as the words describe the ceremonies of a covenant, 
at which the victim was not burnt. In the case of an ordinary 
sacrifice we find no mention of the hair of the victim being distri- 
buted before being burnt on the altar. 

2) Géller proposed to supply, with Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρί, διδόντες γέρα τὰ 
νομιζόμενα from the first clause; προκαταρχόμενοι τῶν ἱερῶν, ‘ when 


30 THUCYDIDES. 


25. 4. commencing the sacrifice,’ answering to ἐν πανηγύρεσι ταῖς κοιναῖς. 


27. 1. 


27. 1. 


38. 2. 


But it may be objected that there is nothing in the first clause 
answering to Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρί. ° 

Or 3) taking Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρί as an instrumental dative, we may 
translate ‘ beginning the sacrifice by the hand of a Corinthian.’ 

The objection to 2) and 3) is that mpo- in προκαταρχόμενοι has no 
special significance. The exact meaning of the word spoxarapxé- 
pevos.remains doubtful. We can only say that it describes some 
honour or privilege granted at the performance of a sacrifice, 
but what was the manner of this privilege is not clear. 

καὶ χρημάτων δυνάμει ὄντες κιτιλ. ὁμοῖα is not put for ὁμοῖοε but 
used as if, not χρημάτων δυνάμει ὄντες but, χρήμασι δυνατοὶ ὄντες had 
preceded. In iii. 14 init. Δία τὸν ᾿ολύμπιον ἐν οὗ τῷ ἱερῷ ἴσα καὶ 
ἱκεταὶ ἐσμέν, ἴσα is not parallel to ὁμοῖα here, because it is not ἃ 
simple predicate, but is closely connected with ixerai. 

The statement is remarkable, for we can hardly suppose the 
wealth of Corcyra to have equalled that of Athens. But Thucy- 
dides may be comparing Corcyra, not with his own city, but 
only with the other states of Hellas. 

kal κατὰ τὴν τῶν Φαιάκων «7A. καί joins κατὰ τὴν προενοίκησιν 
with ναυτικῷ καὶ πολὺ προέχειν, ‘flattered themselves that they 
were greatly superior, and also on the ground of the naval fame 
of the Phaeacians. With this mention of the Phaeacians cp. 
iii, 70 med. φάσκων τέμνειν χάρακας ἐκ τοῦ τε Διὸς τοῦ τεμένους καὶ 
τοῦ ᾿Αλκίνου. 


καὶ ἅμα ἀποικίαν ἐς τὴν ᾿Επίδαμνον ἐκήρυσσον, ἐπὶ τῇ ἴσῃ καὶ ὁμοίᾳ τὸν 
βουλόμενον ἱέναι. 

It is uncertain whether these words refer to equality among the 
settlers themselves, equality with the citizens of Epidamnus, or 
equality with the citizens who remained at Corinth. 


πεντήκοντα δραχμὰς καταθέντα Κορινθίας κιτιλ. 
See note on iii. 70. 4. 


ἤθελον δὲ καὶ τῷ ἐν Δελφοῖς μαντείῳ ἐπιτρέψαι. 
This appears singular, considering that the oracle had already 
taken a side in advising the Epidamnians to deliver up their city to 


NOTES, BOOK I. 41 


the Corinthians (i. 25 init.). Did they not know of the former 38. 2. 
response, or did they hope to exert an influence over the oracle? 


Κερκυραῖοι δὲ ἀντέλεγον, ἣν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι τοὺς ἐν ᾿Ἐπιδάμνῳ ἀπαγάγωσι, 38. 5. 
grouse ταῦτα' ἑτοῖμοι δὲ εἶναι καὶ ὥστε ἀμφοτέρους μένειν κατὰ χώραν, 
σπονδὰς δὲ ποιήσασθαι ἕως ἂν ἡ δίκη γένηται. 

It is unnecessary to omit the δέ after σπονδάς, which is found in 
all the MSS. There is a slight opposition between the two clauses, 
‘that both should remain on the spot, but discontinue fighting.’ 

1)* ὥστε may be pleonastic after ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι, ‘they were ready 
that both should remain.’ According to Herbst and Classen, the 
willingness of the Corcyraeans to submit to arbitration, and not 
the terms on which they are willing to submit, should be expressed 
in the leading verb of the sentence. But the objection is not 
conclusive. For both sides have already professed their willing- 
ness to accept arbitration, on certain conditions: the point in dis- 
pute is, what the conditions shall be. 

Or 2) we may supply ποιήσειν ταῦτα with ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι, ‘and 
again they were ready to have an arbitration on condition that 
both should remain,’ etc. 

Compare v. 41 med. ἀλλ᾽ ef βούλονται σπένδεσθαι ὥσπερ πρότερον, 
ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι. 


τοῦ τε χρόνου τὸν πλεῖστον μετὰ τὴν ναυμαχίαν ἐκράτουν τῆς θαλάσσης, 80. 3.-- 
καὶ τοὺς τῶν Κορινθίων ξυμμάχους ἐπιπλέοντες ἔφθειρον, μέχρι οὗ Κορίνθιοι 
περιόντι τῷ θέρει πέμψαντες ναῦς καὶ στρατιάν, ἐπεὶ σφῶν οἱ ξύμμαχοι 
ἐπόνουν, ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο ἐπὶ ᾿Ακτίῳ καὶ περὶ τὸ Χειμέριον τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος 
φυλακῆς ἕνεκα τῆς τε Λευκάδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πόλεων, ὅσαι σφίσι φίλιαι 
ἦσαν. ἀντεστρατοπεδεύοντο δὲ καὶ οἱ Κερκυραῖοι ἐπὶ τῇ Λευκίμμῃ ναυσί 4. 
τε καὶ πεζῷ. ἐπέπλεόν τε οὐδέτεροι ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλὰ τὸ θέρος τοῦτο ἀντι- 
καθεζόμενοι χειμῶνος ἤδη ἀνεχώρησαν én’ οἴκου ἑκάτεροι. 

Τὸν δ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν πάντα τὸν μετὰ τὴν ναυμαχίαν καὶ τὸν ὕστερον οἱ 81. 1. 
Κορίνθιοι ὀργῇ φέροντες τὸν πρὸς Κερκυραίους πόλεμον ἐναυπηγοῦντο. 

The reading περιόντι τῷ θέρει has the authority of all the MSS. 
but one: the exception however is the Augustan, one of the very 
best, which reads περιζόντι. 

Nor is περιόντε indefensible on grammatical grounds, provided 


91. 1. 


32 THUCYDIDES. 


we translate, not ‘in what remained of the summer’ but, ‘ in the 
summer which had not yet come to an end:’ περιόντε being 
brought into prominence as the predicate. Cp., though not exactly 
analogous, vii. 9 init. ἐν δὲ rp αὐτῷ θέρει τελευτῶντι. 

τῷ θέρει, like τὸ θέρος τοῦτο below, need not here mean the whole 
summer. That it was a part only may be inferred from the 
context. | 

After the battle the Corcyraeans obtained command of the sea, 
which they retained for the greater part of the remainder of the= 
season, or time still available for naval operations (τὸν πλεῖστον ros 
χρόνου). Towards the end of this summer, περιόντι τῷ θέρει, ΟΞ 
περζόντι See below 3, the Corinthians reappeared on the sea, bu 
no engagement occurred during the remaining summer month== 
(τὸ θέρος τοῦτο). In i, 31 init. we are told that the Corinthians are= 
getting a new fleet ready ‘all the year after the seafight, and the= 
year after that,’ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν πάντα τὸν μετὰ τὴν ναυμαχίαν καὶ τὸν 
ὕστερον. This may imply, 1) two full years (spring or summer 
of 434-432), counting from the date of the sea-fight; or 2) 
the remainder of the year in which the sea-fight took place and 
the year following (spring or summer of 434—end of 433); 
or 3) the year succeeding that in which the sea-fight took place, 
and the next year (434, 433. The sea-fight will then have taken 
place in 435). In the first two cases the beginning of ch. 31 is 
a resumption, and not a continuation of the narrative. 

Some editors read περιϊόντι, and 1) refer the word to the coming 
round of the summer after the spring in which the sea-fight 
occurred. But with Thucydides θέρος includes both spring and 
summer, and it is therefore unlike his way of speaking to divide 
the half year into spring and summer. 

Or 2) περιϊόντι may be taken of the coming round of the summer 
in the next year. 

But a) then nearly a whole year passed during which the 
Corinthians remained inactive. This objection, however, is partly 
answered by the consideration that we do not know at what time 
the sea-fight took place. It may have been at the end of the 
summer, and in that case naval operations would only be resumed 
in the spring. It cannot have been quite early in the year; time 


NOTES, BOOK I. 33 


Tust be allowed for the various events which had occurred since 80. 3. 
the original occupation of Epidamnus. (i. 26 init. Κερκυραῖοι δὲ 
edi 29 init. ἐναντία πολεμήσοντες.) It is a more serious objection 
4) to this explanation that no definite meaning is given to τὸν 
*Acio-zoy τοῦ χρόνου. For why ‘the greater part of the season,’ unless 
the superiority of the Corcyraeans at sea was put an end to by the 
te-a p pearance of the Corinthian fleet during the same season? 
3) It is also possible that περιϊόντι τῷ θέρει may mean simply 
‘wlhem the summer was completing its cycle,’ or ‘was coming 
fou ra ci to autumn.’ 
“E~ Ene phrase περιϊόντι τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ is found in Xen. Hell. iii. 
2. πα 55, where the words may be taken either as in 3), of the 
“tuum of the year,’ or, as in 2), of the ‘coming round of the next 
year.” The same variation of reading, περιόντι for reptidvrs, occurs 
there. 
~ K~Rnat there is some harshness or meagreness in the explanation 
which has been offered of περιόντι τῷ θέρει cannot be denied. 
On the other hand, περιόντι is found in every MS. but one. 
The other reading περιϊζόντι is best explained as in 3) ‘when the 
SUIrarmer came round to autumn. But of this usage of the word 
We are not quite certain. Even if the meaning in Xenophon could 
be Precisely determined, περιόντι τῷ θέρει is not exactly parallel with 
*epedeSyr τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ. 


Kexza περιέστηκεν ἡ δοκοῦσα ἡμῶν πρότερον σωφροσύνη, τὸ μὴ ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ 88. 4. 

MRenyia τῇ τοῦ πέλας γνώμῃ ξυγκινδυνεύειν, νῦν ἀβουλία καὶ ἀσθένεια 
fierce μένη. 

ὥρα νομένη is the explanation of περιέστηκεν, and is opposed to 
doe Gera, ‘Our fancied wisdom has changed its character, and is 
hows clearly seen to be folly and weakness.’ 


Kame ξυγγνώμη εἰ μὴ μετὰ κακίας, δόξης δὲ μᾶλλον ἁμαρτίᾳ, τῇ πρότερον 82. 5. 
al aa μοσύνῃ ἐναντία τολμῶμεν. 
δ τ expression is inaccurate. The words μὴ μετὰ κακίας, δόξης δὲ 
©» ἁμαρτίᾳ refer, not to the conduct of the Corcyraeans in 
ΒΕ ΕἸς iing the Athenian alliance, but to their previous policy in avoid- 
SE alliances, with which their present appeal to Athens was in- 
cOMRistent (ἐναντία. Cp. ἐς τὴν χρείαν ἡμῖν ἄλογον, ὃ 3). 
VOL. m1. D 


32. 5. 


33. I, 


34 THUCYDIDES. 


Instead of saying ‘ excuse us if we formerly made an innocent 
mistake, and now prefer a request which is inconsistent with it,’ 
Thucydides says, ‘if we innocently and by an error of judgment 
(i.e. by reason of our former conduct which was innocent and an 
error of judgment) fall into inconsistency.’ μετὰ κακίας and ἁμαρτίᾳ, 
though grammatically joined with ἐναντία τολμῶμεν, are in idea con- 
nected with τῇ πρότερον ampaypoovvn,—the error lay in their previous 
conduct which made their present action inconsistent. 


γενήσεται δὲ ὑμῖν πειθομένοις καλὴ ἡ ξυντυχία κατὰ πολλὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας: 
χρείας" πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἀδικουμένοις καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρους βλάπτουσι τὴν 
ἐπικουρίαν ποιήσεσθε, ἔπειτα περὶ τῶν μεγίστων κινδυνεύοντας δεξάμενοι 
ὡς ἄν μάλιστα μετὰ ἀειμνήστου μαρτυρίου τὴν χάριν κατάθησθε, ναυτικόν 
τε κεκτήμεθα πλὴν τοῦ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πλεῖστον. 

The μαρτύριον is the signal benefit conferred which will always 
be a witness to the goodwill of the Athenians. 

All the MSS. read κατάθησθε or καταθῆσθε, though in the Lauren- 
tian MS. there was originally room for two letters where 7 now 
stands. 

1) The second clause, ἔπειτα... κατάθησθε, has been taken, not as 
parallel to the first, πρῶτον μὲν... ποιήσεσθε, but as a participial 
clause dependent on τὴν ἐπικουρίαν ποιήσεσθε, ‘because in the first 
place you will be helping the injured and not the injurers by re- 
ceiving in the second place those whose dearest interests are at 
stake.’ 

It is then possible to give ὡς ἄν the meaning ‘in order that.’ 
But δεξάμενοι, if really subordinate to ποιήσεσθε, would hardly have 
been introduced by ἔπειτα. 

Or 2), δεξάμενοι may be regarded as parallel to ὅτι ποιήσεσθε and 
dependent on éfere ξυντυχίαν latent in καλὴ ἡ ξυντυχία (Shilleto). 

Still the flow of the sentence leads us to suppose that the verb 
answering to ποιήσεσθε will be found in the clause ὡς a»... «ard- 
6n06e, This verb, if the MS. reading be retained, must be «ara- 
θήσεσθε supplied out of κατάθησθε. The meaning will then be— 

3) ‘You will store up gratitude in whatever way you best store it 
up. (Cp. Dem. Olynth. i. 22, ἄξιον δὲ ἐνθυμηθῆναι καὶ λογίσασθαι τὰ 
πράγματα, ἐν ᾧ καθέστηκε νυνί, τὰ Φιλίππου. οὔτε yap, ὡς δοκεῖ καὶ φήσειέ 


NOTES, BOOK I. 35 


res ἂν μὴ σκοπῶν ἀκριβῶς, εὐτρεπῶς, οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἂν κάλλιστ᾽ αὐτῷ τὰ παρόντ᾽ ἔχῃ 33. 1. 
(scil. ἔχει), where however ἔχῃ is harsh, and ἔχει may very probably 
be the true reading.) 

But the sense required in the text is, 4)* ‘you will store up 
gratitude in the way in which you would best store it up.’ This 
sense is gained by the easiest correction of the MSS. reading, 
καταθεῖσθε, ἂν καταθεῖσθε being parallel to ποιήσεσθε. 

We might have expected indeed ὡς μάλιστ᾽ ἄν rather than ὡς ἂν 
μάλιστα. But the position of ἄν is not a serious objection. The 
alteration of the text is slight, and therefore preferable to the more 
violent emendation, καταθήσεσθε, although the latter secures, it is 
true, a better balance with ποιήσεσθε, and obviates the difficulty 
arising from the position of ἄν. The corruption may possibly 
have arisen out of the insertion of κατάθησθε as a gloss on ὡς 
ἄν μάλιστα. We may observe that μέν is slightly out of place; 
ὅτι πρῶτον μέν would be more regular than πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι. 


καὶ οὐκ αἰσθάνεται τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους φόβῳ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ πολεμησεί- 88. 3. 
οντας. 

For this objective use of the possessive pronoun cp. just below, 
ἐς τὴν ὑμετέραν ἐπιχείρησιν, i. 69 fin. al ὑμέτεραι ἐλπίδες, i. 77 fin. 
διὰ τὸ ἡμέτερον δέος, i. 187 fin. διὰ τὴν σὴν φιλίαν. 


καὶ τοὺς Ἑορινθίους δυναμένους παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ ὑμῖν ἐχθροὺς ὄντας, καὶ 88. 3. 
προκαταλαμβάνοντας ἡμᾶς νῦν ἐς τὴν ὑμετέραν ἐπιχείρησιν, ἵνα μὴ τῷ κοινῷ 
ἔχθει κατ᾽ αὐτῶν per ἀλλήλων στῶμεν, μηδὲ δυοῖν φθάσαι ἁμάρτωσιν, 
ἢ κακῶσαι ἡμᾶς ἢ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς βεβαιώσασθαι. 

δυοῖν is governed by ἁμαρτῶσι, φθάσαι is an explanatory or supple- 
mental infinitive. 

1) The Corinthians hope ‘ to secure in good time’ (i. e. before 
the Athenians and Corcyraeans unite) ‘one of two things: either 
the injury of the Corcyraeans or their own aggrandisement.’ If 
they do not strengthen themselves they will at any rate injure the 
Corcyraeans ; or, if they do not injure the Corcyraeans, they will 
at any rate strengthen themselves. Cp. i. 122. 3, and note. 

There is a further refinement of language: they intend ‘not to 
miss both of two things :’ i.e. ‘one of two things.’ δυοῖν can be 

D 2 


46 THUCYDIDES. 


33. 3. taken in this sense if joined, not with the positive notion φθάσαι, 
but with the negative ἁμάρτωσι. 

2) It has been suggested that κακῶσαι ἡμᾶς may mean ‘to destroy 
the Corcyraeans,’ and σφᾶς αὐτοὺς βεβαιώσασθαι ‘to strengthen them- 
selves by forcing the Corcyraeans into an alliance.’ But there is 
no hint of this in the context, and the thought would be too 
imperfectly expressed. 

3) It has also been supposed that the force of the μηδέ extends 
over the two #’s. They will then become equivalent to μήτε---- μήτε, 
‘that they may not fail both to ruin us and increase their own 
strength.’ But such a use of ἢ after μηδέ cannot be admitted unless 
other passages are quoted in support of it. 


35. 4. ἣν οὐ δίκαιον, ἀλλ᾽ ἣ κἀκείνων κωλύειν τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ὑμετέρας μισθοφόρονε, 
ἢ καὶ ἡμῖν πέμπειν καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν πείσθητε ὠφελίαν. 
καὶ ἐκείνων κωλύειν, ‘as well as refusing to aid us:’ καὶ ἡμῖν πέμπειν, 
‘as well as continuing to aid them.’ 


35. δ. πολλὰ δὲ ὥσπερ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὑπείπομεν τὰ ξυμφέροντα ἀποδείκνυμεν" καὶ 
μέγιστον ὅτι οἷ τε αὐτοὶ πολέμιοι ἡμῖν ἦσαν, ὅπερ σαφεστάτη πίστις κιτ.Ἃ. 
ἦσαν, the past tense, answering to ὑπείπομεν, ‘were shown to be.” 


35. 56. καὶ ναυτικῆς καὶ οὐκ ἠπειρώτιδος τῆς ξυμμαχίας διδομένης οὐχ ὁμοία ἦ 
ἀλλοτρίωσις᾽ ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μέν, εἰ δύνασθε, μηδένα ἄλλον ἐᾷν κεκτῆσθαι 
pais’ εἰ δὲ μή, ὅστις ἐχυρώτατος, τοῦτον φίλον ἔχειν. 

The infinitives ἐᾷν, ἔχειν, depend on δεῖ understood from οὐχ 
ὁμοία ἡ ἀλλοτρίωσις, as though ἧττον δεῖ ἀλλοτριοῦν had preceded. 


36. 1. καὶ ὅτῳ τάδε ξυμφέροντα μὲν δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι, φοβεῖται δὲ μὴ &? αὐτὰ 
πειθόμενος τὰς σπονδὰς λύσῃ, γνώτω τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ, ἰσχὺν ἔχον, τοὺς 
ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον᾽ τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένου ἀσθενὲς ὃν πρὸς 
ἰσχύοντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀδεέστερον ἐσόμενον. 

Mr. Shilleto translates, ‘let him know that the cautious appre- 
hension of danger (which will lead him to accept our offer) when 
backed by strength will be more formidable to his enemies, 
whereas his overweening confidence if he accept not the offer, not 
backed by strength, will be less formidable to meet his adversaries 
when strong.’ 


NOTES, BOOK I. 37 


He argues that τὸ δεδιός cannot refer to φοβεῖται, a) because ‘as 36. Σ. 
long as the fear (of violating the peace of Euboea) lasted, the offer 
would not be accepted. How could such fear then be backed by 
strength? An accepter of the strength (their proffered alliance) 
would first have dismissed /his fear.’ 

And 3), because δέος and allied words mean simply apprehension 
of evil, not like φόβος, panic fear, (although φόβος is sometimes 
synonymous with δέος) : ‘Does any passage in Thucydides, where 
δεδιέναι Occurs, suggest the meaning “midity, cowardly fear?” 

But a) as no opposition between φοβεῖται and τὸ δεδιός is indicated 
by their place in the sentence, or by anything in the context, it seems 
more natural to suppose that one is the resumption of the other. And 
such a resumption accords with the verbal character of this passage. 

And 4), the word δεδιέναε is clearly used of cowardly fear in 
ti. 65 med. ὁπότε γοῦν αἴσθοιτό τι αὐτοὺς παρὰ καιρὸν ὕβρει θαρσοῦντας, 
λέγων κατέπλησσεν ἐπὶ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι, καὶ δεδιότας αὖ ἀλόγως ἀντικαθίστη 
«τάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ θαρσεῖν. If it be said that ἀλόγως here qualifies δεδιότας, 
we may quote iv. 126 init. βαρβάρους δέ, obs νῦν ἀπειρίᾳ δέδιτε, μαθεῖν 
χρή, - . . ov δεινοὺς ἐσομένους. 

It must be admitted that τὸ δεδιός is not accurate, but denotes 
the fear which the Athenians are supposed to entertain previously to 
accepting the alliance. We may conceive a person arguing the 
matter thus, ‘This fear which you have of entering into alliance will 
cease when you have made the alliance ; it will then be the tum of 
_your enemies to fear.’ Strictly speaking, it is not the fear which 
has ‘acquired strength,’ but the person who fears. But the we of 
antithesis, however bald, overrides many inaccuracies of lanyvaye 
in Thucydides. 

Or, the fear of the consequences may be supposed to remadt, 
even after the Athenians have accepted the new alzzme: atirngi, 
now that they have an increase in material strength, te eeacr, 

rather than they, have reason to be afraii ‘Some one &-2 
that in accepting us he will be breaking the tremy! Lee pu-a 
““ cautelous ” persons know that the best way of commfsering <ucr 
-timid souls is to get strength on their side.’ 


καὶ ob τὰ κράτιστα αὐταῖς προνοῶν, ὅτ᾽ ἂν és sip plinerws au ore - Ὁ « 


46 THUCYDIDES. 


33. 3. taken in this sense if joined, not with the positive notion φθάσαι, 
but with the negative ἁμάρτωσι. 

2) It has been suggested that κακῶσαι ἡμᾶς may mean ‘to destroy 
the Corcyraeans,’ and σφᾶς αὐτοὺς βεβαιώσασθαι ‘to strengthen them- 
selves by forcing the Corcyraeans into an alliance.’ But there is 
no hint of this in the context, and the thought would be too 
imperfectly expressed. 

3) It has also been suppcsed that the force of the μηδέ extends 
over the two q’s. They will then become equivalent to μήτε---- μήτε, 
‘that they may not fail both to ruin us and increase their own 
strength.’ But such a use of ἤ after μηδέ cannot be admitted unless 
other passages are quoted in support of it. 


35. 4. ἣν οὐ δίκαιον, ἀλλ᾽ ἣ κἀκείνων κωλύειν τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ὑμετέρας μισθοφόρονε, 
ἡ καὶ ἡμῖν πέμπειν καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν πείσθητε ὠφελίαν. 
καὶ ἐκείνων κωλύειν, ‘as well as refusing to aid uS:’ καὶ ἡμῖν πέμπειν, 
‘as well as continuing to aid them.’ 


35. §. πολλὰ δὲ ὥσπερ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὑπείπομεν τὰ ξυμφέροντα ἀποδείκνυμεν" καὶ 
μέγιστον ὅτι οἷ τε αὐτοὶ πολέμιοι ἡμῖν ἧσαν, ὅπερ σαφεστάτη πίστις κιτλ. 
ἦσαν, the past tense, answering to ὑπείπομεν, ‘were shown to be.’ 


35. 5. καὶ ναυτικῆς καὶ οὐκ ἠπειρώτιδος τῆς ξυμμαχίας διδομένης οὐχ Spoia ἢ 
ἀλλοτρίωσις᾽ ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μέν, εἰ δύνασθε, μηδένα ἄλλον ἐᾷν κεκτῆσθαι 
pais’ εἰ δὲ μή, ὅστις ἐχυρώτατος, τοῦτον φίλον ἔχειν. 

The infinitives ἐᾷν, ἔχειν, depend on δεῖ understood from οὐχ 
ὁμοία ἡ ἀλλοτρίωσις, as though ἧττον δεῖ ἀλλοτριοῦν had preceded. 


86.1. καὶ ὅτῳ τάδε ξυμφέροντα μὲν δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι, φοβεῖται δὲ μὴ δι’ αὐτὰ 
πειθόμενος τὰς σπονδὰς λύσῃ, γνώτω τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ, ἰσχὺν ἔχον, τοὺς 
ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον᾽ τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένον ἀσθενὲς ὃν πρὸς 
ἰσχύοντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀδεέστερον ἐσόμενον. 

Mr. Shilleto translates, ‘let him know that the cautious appre- 
hension of danger (which will lead him to accept our offer) when 
backed by strength will be more formidable to his enemies, 
whereas his overweening confidence if he accept not the offer, not 
backed by strength, will be less formidable to meet his adversaries 
when strong.’ 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 37 


He argues that τὸ δεδιός cannot refer to φοβεῖται, a) because ‘as 86. I. 
long as the fear (of violating the peace of Euboea) lasted, the offer 
Would not be accepted. How could suck fear then be backed by 
Stength? An accepter of the strength (their proffered alliance) 
Would first have dismissed /Azs fear.’ 

And 4), because δέος and allied words mean simply apprehension 
Of evil, not like φόβος, panic fear, (although φόβος is sometimes 

Synonymous with δέος) : ‘ Does any passage in Thucydides, where 
Sede wax Occurs, suggest the meaning fmidity, cowardly fear ῥ᾽ 
But a) as no opposition between φοβεῖται and τὸ δεδιός is indicated 
by their place in the sentence, or by anything in the context, it seems 
Ore natural to suppose that one is the resumption of the other. And 
Such, a resumption accords with the verbal character of this passage. 
And 4), the word δεδιέναι is clearly used of cowardly fear in 
W. G5 med. ὁπότε γοῦν αἴσθοιτό τι αὐτοὺς παρὰ καιρὸν ὕβρει θαρσοῦντας, 
Ἀξγων κατέπλησσεν ἐπὶ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι, καὶ δεδιότας αὖ ἀλόγως ἀντικαθίστη 
πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ θαρσεῖν. If it be said that ἀλόγως here qualifies δεδιότας, 
We may quote iv. 126 init. βαρβάρους δέ, obs viv ἀπειρίᾳ δέδιτε, μαθεῖν 
XPn,. . . οὐ δεινοὺς ἐσομένους. 

It must be admitted that ro δεδιός is not accurate, but denotes 

the fear which the Athenians are supposed to entertain previously to 
accepting the alliance. We may conceive a person arguing the 
matter thus, ‘This fear which you have of entering into alliance will 
cease when you have made the alliance ; it will then be the turn of 
your enemies to fear.’ Strictly speaking, it is not the fear which 
has ‘ acquired strength,’ but the person who fears. But the love of 
antithesis, however bald, overrides many inaccuracies of language 
in Thucydides. 

Or, the fear of the consequences may be supposed to remain, 
even after the Athenians have accepted the new alliance: although, 
-now that they have an increase in material strength, the enemy, 
‘rather than they, have reason to be afraid. ‘Some one fears 
that in accepting us he will be breaking the treaty! Let such 
‘‘ cautelous ” persons know that the best way of comforting their 
timid souls is to get strength on their side.’ 


καὶ ob τὰ κράτιστα αὐταῖς προνοῶν, ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἐς τὸν μέλλοντα καὶ ὅσον οὐ 86, Ie 


36. 1. 


36. 3. 


38 THUCYDIDES. 


παρόντα πόλεμον, τὸ αὐτίκα περισκοπῶν, ἐνδοιάζῃ χωρίον προσλαβεῖν ὃ μετὰ 
μεγίστων καιρῶν οἰκειοῦταί τε καὶ πολεμοῦται. 
ὅτ᾽ ἄν. Cp. note on i. 141. 6. 
ὃ μετὰ μεγίστων καιρῶν x.r.A., ‘of which no one can make a friend 
or an enemy without gaining or losing great opportunities.” 


βραχυτάτῳ δ᾽ ἄν κεφαλαίῳ τοῖς τε ξύμπασι καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τῴδ᾽ ἄν 
μὴ προέσθαι ἡμᾶς μάθοιτε' τρία μὲν ὄντα λόγου ἄξια τοῖς Ἕλλησι 
ναυτικά, τὸ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον, καὶ τὸ τῶν Κορινθίων, τούτων δ᾽ ef 
περιόψεσθε τὰ δύο ἐς ταὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν, καὶ Κορίνθιοι ἡμᾶς προκαταλήψονταιε, 
Κερκυραίοις τε καὶ Πελοποννησίοις ἅμα vavpaynoere’ δεξάμενοι δὲ ἡμᾶς 
ἕξετε πρὸς αὐτοὺς πλείοσι ναυσὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἀγωνίζεσθαι. 

τοῖς is the dative in apposition with βραχυτάτῳ κεφαλαίῳ . . . τῷδε, 
and includes καθ᾽ ἕκαστον as well as ξύμπασι. τοῖς re ξύμπασι καὶ τοῖς 
καθ᾽ ἕκαστον would be the full expression, ‘by the shortest possible 
summary of the facts, embracing the whole and each particular, 
which is this.’ 

Compare for the pleonasm the last two lines of Macbeth :— 

‘So thanks to all at once and to each one 
Whom we invite to see us crowned at Scone.’ 

τρία μὲν ἄντα κιτλ. 

1) Poppo explains the accusative by taking μάθοιτε ἄν in two 
constructions, with the infinitive in the sense of ‘learn,’ and with 
the participle in the sense of ‘ know.’ 

Or better (as Shilleto), retaining the same meaning for μάθοιτε, 
‘You may learn by one short argument not to betray us,’ and 
then, as if the writer forgot that μάθοιτε has already a construction 
with the infinitive, ‘(you may learn) that Hellas has but three con- 
siderable navies ;’ this last statement being of course subordinate 
in sense to τούτων δ᾽ ef περιόψεσθε x.t.X. 

2) Classen would rather supply ἐστί, taking ὄντα with λόγου 
ἄξια. But it seems unlikely that ὄντα should be supplied while 
ἐστί is omitted. 

It is simpler 3)* to take τρία ὄντα as an accusativus pendens, partly 
supported by the coming verb περιόψεσθε, ‘ that whereas there are 
three navies, etc., if you allow,’ etc. 

More regularly the sentence would have run ὅτι τριῶν μὲν ὄντων... 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 39 


περιορώντων δὲ ὑμῶν... Κερκυραίοις re καὶ Πελοποννησίοις dua ναυμα- 86. 3. 

χήσετε.ς The formal opposition of the clauses, expressed in μέν 

and δέ, is retained, and adds dignity to the sentence, which may 

be expressed in English by ‘whereas,’ ‘forasmuch as.’ But as 

the first clause is subordinated to the second, the opposition is 

not to be pressed. 
πλείοσι ναυσὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις, Not ‘with more ships,’ but ‘ with 

additional ships, namely, with ours.’ 


ξύμμαχόν τε οὐδένα βουλόμενοι πρὸς τἀδικήματα οὐδὲ μάρτυρα ἔχειν, οὔτε 87. 2. 
πεαρακαλοῦντες αἰσχύνεσθαι. 

οὔτε answers to τέ, and μάρτυρα is in apposition with ξύμμαχον : 
οὐδέ emphasizes μάρτυρα. ‘ They wanted no ally who would certainly 
be a witness of their crimes, even if he did not interfere with 
them.’ 

παρακαλοῦντες. The general notion of alliance in the first clause 
is opposed to the special occasions of calling in the ally in the 
second. 


καὶ ἡ πόλις αὐτῶν dua, αὐτάρκη θέσιν κειμένη, παρέχει αὐτοὺς δικαστὰς 87. 3. 
ὧν βλάπτουσί τινα μᾶλλον ἣ κατὰ ξυνθήκας γίγνεσθαι. 

1)* Supply δικαστάς with γίγνεσθαι, ‘than that arbitrators should 
_ be appointed according to a previous treaty,’ such as would have 
bound the Corcyraeans had they entered into relations with other 
states. | 

This seems preferable to the rendering 2) ‘ than they would be 
if bound by a regular treaty,’ γίγνεσθαι being separated from ἣ κατὰ 
ξυνθήκας and taken with παρέχει δικαστάς, For the pleonastic γίγνεσθαι 
comes in awkwardly so far after παρέχει δικαστάς. 

αὐτοὺς δικαστάς, judges in their own cause. 

Their isolated position, and the consequent rarity of their visits 
to others, enabled them to dispense with δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων (cp. 
note on i. 77. 1), because they did not require the protection 
afforded by them. 


καὶ δῆλον, ὅτι, εἰ τοῖς πλέοσιν ἀρέσκοντές ἐσμεν, τοῖσδ᾽ ἂν μόνοις οὐκ 38, 4. 
ὀρθῶς ἀπαρέσκοιμεν, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιστρατεύομεν ἐκπρεπῶς μὴ καὶ διαφερόντως τι 
ἀδικούμενοι. 


38. 4. 


39. I. 


40 THUCYDIDES. 


There is a great preponderance of good MS. authority against 
ἐπιστρατεύοιμεν and εὐπρεπῶς which look like conjectures. 

It is doubtful whether ἐκπρεπῶς is connected closely r)* with the 
verb, or 2) with the negative,—in the first case admitting, in the 
second denying, the exceptional character of the Corinthian pro- 
ceedings. , 

Its position after ἐπιστρατεύομεν, not after οὐδέ, and the parallel im- 
plied in καί between διαφερόντως and ἐκπρεπῶς, ‘we do not make 
an attack of so unusual a character without being at the same 
time signally injured,’ are in favour of 1)*. According to 2) the 
clause μὴ cat... ἀδικούμενοι is explanatory of ἐκπρεπῶς (just as εἰ μή 
τι ἠδίκουν ols ἐπήεσαν is Of ἄκοντας in iii. 11. 3. See note there). 
The two expressions would naturally be separated; united they 
overload the sentence. ‘We are not attacking them in an extra- 
ordinary way—we should not be attacking them if we were not 
also being signally wronged by them.’ 


καὶ φασὶ δὴ δίκῃ πρότερον ἐθελῆσαι κρίνεσθαι" ἣν ye ov τὸν προὔχοντα 
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀσφαλοῦς προκαλούμενον λέγειν τι δοκεῖν δεῖ, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐς ἴσον 


. τά τε ἔργα ὁμοίως καὶ τοὺς λόγους, πρὶν διαγωνίζεσθαι, καθιστάντα. οὗτοι 


δ᾽ οὐ πρὶν πολιορκεῖν τὸ χωρίον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἡγήσαντο ἡμᾶς οὐ περιόψεσθαι, 
τότε καὶ τὸ εὐπρεπὲς τῆς δίκης παρέσχοντο. 

πρότερον refers to ἑλόντες βίᾳ ἔχουσι at the end of ch. 38; ‘before 
taking Epidamnus,’ not ‘ before attacking it,’ which would not have 
been true. Cp. i. 28 fin., 29 fin. 

ἐς ἴσον, on a fair footing as regards the enemy. Or possibly the 
meaning is ra ἔργα ἐς ἴσον τοῖς λόγοις καθιστάντα. In this case ὁμοίως 
is pleonastic. 

τὸν ἐς ἴσον x.r.A. ‘The appeal to arbitration might have a mean- 
ing in the mouth of one who dealt fairly with his enemy, in deed 
as well as word, before appealing to arms:’ i.e. one who proposed 
arbitration before going to war—when it would have been a fair 
arbitration—and not afterwards, as the Corcyraeans have done, 
when he has already gained an advantage, and when the offer, 
though plausible, is insincere. 

It has been suggested that πρὶν διαγωνίζεσθαι may =‘ before 
appealing to arbitration.’ A good sense is thus given to ἐς ἴσον 


NOTES, BOOK ἢ 41 


καθιστάντα, “ἃ man should put himself on an equality before he 39. 1. 
enters on an arbitration:’ i.e. the Corcyraeans should have retired 
from Epidamnus. 

But even if this meaning of διαγωνίζεσθαι were possible it seems 
to be forbidden here by the obvious parallelism between πρὶν διαγω- 
νίζεσθαι and πρὶν πολιορκεῖν, which immediately follows, and is a 
variation or more precise description of πρὶν διαγωνίζεσθαι. Some 
editors take διαγωνίζεσθαι in a more extended sense, ‘before he 
undertakes the struggle,’ meaning ‘ before he appeals either to law 
or arms.’ But this explanation is equally inconsistent with the 
following words. 


[ἐγκλημάτων δὲ μόνων ἀμετόχους οὕτω τῶν μετὰ τὰς πράξεις τούτων μὴ 39, 3. 
κοινωνεῖν. 

There are reasons in the state of the text for regarding 
these words as a gloss. They are found in the Laurentian 
MS. Bekker’s C. But of the eight MSS. in Poppo’s first class 
they are wanting in three, and in two others found only on the 
margin. Of the six in his second class they are wanting in 
three, on the margin in one. It may be argued, on the other 
side, that they are more likely to have been omitted than in- 
serted. Instances of long glosses occur very rarely. That the 
words are tautological is no argument against them. They 
cannot be an explanation, and no other reason can be given 
for their insertion. 

If genuine, they may be taken 1)* in Hermann’s way: 
ἀμετόχους referring by a change of subject to the Athenians, and 
μόνων being an anticipation of τῶν pera ras πράξεις τούτων μὴ κοινωνεῖν. 
‘You ought not, when their crimes,’ (literally, ‘the grounds of 
blame,’) ‘are thus the only things in which you do not partake, 
nevertheless (οὕτω, being guiltless of their crimes), to share in 
their punishment,’ literally, ‘to share in the consequences of the 
actions of these men’ Ὁ 

Still we should have expected μηδέ, ἐγκλημάτων μόνων ἀμετόχους, 
οὕτω τῶν pera Tas πράξεις τούτων κοινωνεῖν. 

It is an apparent objection only that the words ἐγκλημάτων ἀμετ- 
όχους are in contradiction to τῆς ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν αἰτίας τὸ ἴσον éere just 


42 THUCYDIDES. 


39. 3. above. Fora distinction may be drawn. The Athenians might 


40. 2. 


4), 1. 


incur blame in the eyes of the Corinthians, though as a matter of 
fact they had no share in the grounds of blame. For ἔγκλημα in 
this objective sense cp. iv. 23 init. of δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐγκλήματα ἔχοντες 
ἐπιδρομήν re τῷ τειχίσματι παράσπονδον καὶ ἄλλα οὐκ ἀξιόλογα δοκοῦντα ὁ 
εἶναι, οὐκ ἀπεδίδοσαν. 

2) The words have also been translated, ‘ You should not have 
a share in the charges which we bring only, being so guiltless 
of the consequences of their actions,’ τῶν μετὰ ras πράξεις being 
taken after duerdyous, and the comma being placed after μόνων and 
τούτων. But the meaning thus given to ἀμετόχους is forced, and 
the order of words unnatural. 


ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις μὴ ἄλλου αὑτὸν ἀποστερῶν ἀσφαλείας δεῖται, καὶ ὅστις μὴ τοῖς 
δεξαμένοις, εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, πόλεμον avr’ εἰρήνης ποιήσει. 

1)* εἰ σωφρονοῦσι appears to be an afterthought: δεξαμένοες εἰ 
σωφρονοῦσιΞε σωφρόνως δεξαμένοι. The meaning is, ‘the treaty 
applies to such as will not bring war instead of peace to those who 
(in that case wisely) receive them,’ wése/y, because they will not bring 
war instead of peace to their new allies. In other words, ‘who 
only receive them on the condition of their not bringing war.’ 
Cp. note on iii. 11. 3. 

The hypothetical form, εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, is chosen because in the 
words ‘those who receive them’ is implied ‘those who will not 
reccive others—if they are wise.’ 

2) εἰ σωφρονοῦσι has been taken, ‘ if they deal with their new allies 
discreetly.’ But this limitation is pointless, and contrary to the 
general context. For Thucydides does not mean to say, ‘ who will 
not involve in war those who receive them if they show ordinary 
prudence,’ but ‘who will under no circumstances involve them 
in war.’ He is drawing a picture of a safe alliance which he 
contrasts in the strongest manner with that offered by the Cor- 
cyraeans. And, except in the case of a state like Corcyra, why 
should any particular prudence be required ἡ 


οὐκ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες Gore βλάπτειν οὐδ᾽ αὖ φίλοι ὥστε ἐπιχρῆσθαι. 
1) ἐπιχρῆσθαι has been supposed to have the meaning ‘to be inti- 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 43 


mate with,’ as in Herodotus iil. 99, ὃς ἂν κάμῃ τῶν ἀστῶν, ἤν re γυνὴ 41. 1, 
ἢν τε ἀνήρ, τὸν μὲν ἄνδρα ἄνδρες ot μάλιστα οἱ ὁμιλέοντες κτείνουσι... 

ἣν δὲ γύνη κάμῃ, αἷ ἐπιχρεώμεναι μάλιστα γυναῖκες ταὐτὰ τοῖσι ἀνδράσι 
ποιεῦσι. But there is then a want of point in the opposition of 
βλάπτειν and ἐπιχρῆσθαι. 

2) The use of the word in Plato’s Laws, xii. 953 A, approaches 
more nearly to the sense here required, φυλάττοντας μὴ νεωτερίζῃ 
ris τι τῶν τοιούτων ξένων, καὶ δίκας αὐτοῖς ὀρθῶς διανέμοντας, ἀναγκαῖα 
μέν, ὡς ὀλίγιστα δ᾽ ἐπιχρωμένους, ‘having dealings with them as little 
as possible.’ We may suppose this meaning modified by the 
reciprocal force of ἐπί in composition, as in ἐπιγαμία, ἐπαλλαγή, 
éraye(Bo. Thus we arrive at the sense ‘so as to interchange 
services’ or ‘good offices.’ The speaker means to say, ‘we are 
not friends so intimate that we do not think of claiming the re- 
payment of obligations.’ 


ἡμεῖς δὲ περιπεπτωκότες οἷς ἐν τῇ Λακεδαίμονι αὐτοὶ προείπομεν, τοὺς 48, 1. 
σφετέρους ξυμμάχους αὐτόν τινα κολάζειν «.r.A. 

οἷς 1)* scil. οἷς περιπεπτωκότα τινά. 

Or 2) περιπεπτωκότες ἐκείνοις ἃ προείπομεν, ‘coming under the 
principle which we laid down. But this use of περιπίπτειν is 
doubtful. 


ἐδόκει yap ὁ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους πόλεμος καὶ ὡς ἔσεσθαι αὐτοῖς. 44. 2. 
καὶ ὥς, see note on iii. 33. 2. 


ἦν τε ἡ ναυμαχία καρτερά, τῇ μὲν τέχνῃ οὐχ ὁμοίως, πεζομαχίᾳ δὲ τὸ 49. 2. 
πλέον προσφερὴς οὖσα. ᾿ 

τῇ μὲν τέχνῃ οὐχ ὁμοίως. Some more general word, like ἐπίσημος, 
has to be supplied from καρτερά. ‘The engagement was fierce, not 
indeed displaying much skill, but resembling a land-fight more 
than a sea-fight,’ i.e. ‘after the manner of a land-fight, which it for 
the most part resembled.’ 


τῆς δὲ τροπῆς γενομένης, ol Κορίνθιοι τὰ σκάφη μὲν οὐχ εἷλκον ἀναδού- 50. 1. 
μενοι τῶν νεῶν, ἃς καταδύσειαν, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐτράποντο φονεύειν 
διεκπλέοντες μᾶλλον ἢ ζωγρεῖν. 


δο. 1. 


δο. 2. 


δ8. 1. 


δῶ. 2. 


44 THUCYDIDES. 


ἐτράποντο is here used in a double construction, ἐτράποντο πρὸς 
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐτράποντο φονεύειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Compare for the 
latter construction ii. 65 fin. ἐτράποντο καθ᾽ ἡδονὰς τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τὰ 
πράγματα ἐνδιδόναι. 


πολλῶν γὰρ νεῶν οὐσῶν ἀμφοτέρων καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς θαλάσσης ἐπεχουσῶν. 
ἐπειδὴ ξυνέμιξαν ἀλλήλοις, οὐ ῥᾳδίως τὴν διάγνωσιν ἐποιοῦντο ὁποῖοι ἐκράτουν 
4 ἐκρατοῦντο. 

ὁποῖοι is the predicate of the sentence and nearly equivalent to 
οἵτινες (Of what sort, or who, they were). It expresses the confusion 
and indistinctness of the struggle. The meaning is, not that the 
combatants saw, as for example in the harbour of Syracuse (vii. 71), 
two adversaries, and were uncertain which was the conqueror; but 
that they were uncertain who was who, i.e. whether any one was 
Corcyraean, or Corinthian, Elean, Megarian, etc., among the con- 
querors and conquered whom they saw. 

If this explanation is considered too subtle, we have no alternative 
except to read ὁπότεροι instead of ὁποῖοι. 


ἔδαξεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἄνδρας és κελήτιον ἐμβιβάσαντας ἄνευ κηρυκείου προσ- 
πέμψαι τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις καὶ πεῖραν ποιήσασθαι. 


The appearance of the Corinthians without a flag of truce was 


. intended to deny on their part that they were at war with Athens, 


and to throw the responsibility of beginning war upon the 
Athenians. 


᾿Αδικεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, πολέμου ἄρχοντες καὶ σπονδὰς λύοντες. 

σπονδαί can be used of a particular treaty as well without as with 
the article, being one of those words which approximate in their use 
to proper names. Cp. the following : 

In i. 71 fin. the sense is clearly indefinite, λύουσι yap σπονδὰς οὐχ 
οἱ δι᾽ ἐρημίαν ἄλλοις προσιόντες x.7.d. 

In the three next passages either meaning, definite or indefinite, 
is possible. 

i. 55 fin. ὅτι σφίσιν ἐν σπονδαῖς μετὰ Κερκυραίων ἐναυμάχουν. 

i. 67 init. κατεβόων ἐλθόντες τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ὅτι σπονδάς τε λελυκότες 
elev καὶ ἀδικοῖεν τὴν Πελοπόννησον. 


i. 78 fin. λέγομεν ὑμῖν, ἕως ἔτι αὐθαίρετος ἀμφοτέροις ἡ εὐβουλία, σπονδὰς 


NOTES, BOOK I. 45 


μὴ λύειν μηδὲ παραβαίνειν τοὺς ὅρκους, ra δὲ διάφορα δίκῃ λίεσθαι κατὰ τὴν Eg, 2, 
ξυνθήκην. 

In ν. 36 init. if σπονδαῖς, which has most authority, is the right 
reading, the definite meaning, ‘the treaty,’ not ‘ peace with Athens,’ 
gives a better sense. ἔτυχον yap ἔφοροι ἕτεροι, καὶ οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ὧν al σπονδαὶ 
ἐγένοντο, ἄρχοντες ἤδη, καί τινες αὐτῶν καὶ ἐναντίοι σπονδαῖς. ‘Opposed 
to treaties,’ or ‘to treaties with Athens ’ in general, can hardly be 
the meaning. 

In i. 123 fin. it seems better 1) to adopt the definite meaning :— 
σπονδάς τε οὐ λύσετε πρότεροι, ds ye καὶ ὁ θεὸς κελεύων πολεμεῖν νομίζει 
παραβεβάσθαι. The γέ following ds proves that these words signify, 
‘you will not be the first to break the treaty, seeing that it is a 
treaty which the God declares to have been already transgressed ;’ 
not ‘you will not be the first to break a treaty which,’ or ‘such as, 
the God declares to have been already transgressed.’ . 

Or 2) there may be a sudden turn from the indefinite to the 
definite, σπονδάς being taken indefinitely, but a definite antecedent 
to ds being obtained from it. ‘ You will not be the first to break 
treaties, when the God declares that this treaty has been already 
broken.’ 

This analysis shows that whether the meaning of the word is 
definite or indefinite can only be determined by the context. 


ἔτυχον yap τριάκοντα vais ἀποστέλλοντες καὶ χιλίους ὁπλίτας ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν 67. 6. 
αὐτοῦ, ᾿Αρχεστράτου τοῦ Λυκομήδους pet ἄλλων δέκα στρατηγοῦντος. 

The number of ten+one commanders in addition to the five 
mentioned below (i. 61 init.) seems excessive, and does not agree 
either with the number of στρατηγοί usually employed on an ex- 
pedition, or with the whole number (ten) appointed in one year. 
It has been proposed therefore to read τεσσάρων instead of δέκα, 
A representing ten not four (which is written {{Π}}.} in some of the 
older MSS.; hence the confusion. Thus, including Archestratus, 
there would be five generals, making up, with the five spoken of 
below, the usual number of ten. This conjecture is probable and 
ingenious. But the change is not absolutely necessary. For 


additional στρατηγοί may have been appointed on extraordinary 
occasions. 


57. 6. 


46 THUCYDIDES. 


The probability of a numerical error in this passage can only be 
estimated by a comparison of other places in which it has been 
proposed to alter numbers by conjecture. 

1) In i. 103 init. of δὲ ἐν ᾿Ιθώμῃ δεκάτῳ ἔτει ὡς οὐκέτι ἐδύναντο 
ἀντέχειν, ξυνέβησαν πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους κτὶ. Kriiger, Historisch 
Philologische Studien, i. p. 156 foll., would read τετάρτῳ instead 
of δεκάτῳ, and brings forward many strong objections to the reading 
generally received. On the other hand, Diodorus, who (xi. 64 fin.) 
speaks of a ten years’ war, had evidently read Thucydides, and the 
mention of the number ten in his narrative is best accounted for 
by the supposition that he found δεκάτῳ ἔτει in the MSS. of his 
time. 

2) In ii. 2 init. the contradiction (if there be one of any import- 
ance, for the variation between the beginnings of the Attic months 
in different years, which might amount to nearly thirty days, throws 
considerable doubt on the question) between Πυθοδώρου ἔτι δύο 
μῆνας ἄρχοντος ᾿Αθηναίοις and ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ would be removed 
if τέτταρας, not δύο, were read, as Kriiger proposes (Stud. i. p. 
221 foll.) 

3) In ii. 20 med. dpa δὲ καὶ of ᾿Αχαρνῆς μέγα μέρος ὄντες τῆς πόλεως 
τρισχίλιοι γὰρ ὁπλῖται ἐγένοντο, Miiller-Striibing (Aristophanes und 
die Historische Kritik : Excursus to p. 432) objects to the number 
τρισχίλιοι. He considers it impossible that a single one of the 174 
demes into which Attica was divided could have furnished so large 
a proportion of the Athenian hoplites, and would read r=300, 
instead of T=3000. But 300 men could not possibly be called 
μέγα μέρος τῆς πόλεως. See note on ii. 20. 4. 

4) In ii. 65 fin. ὁμῶς τρία μὲν ἔτη ἀντεῖχον, the received reading, 
is defensible, cp. Krtiger, Studien, ii. p. 133, 150 foll. δέκα ἔτη, an 
emendation proposed by Haacke, adopted by Classen, and favour- 
ably mentioned by Poppo (ed. maj. i. 2. p. 572), gives too long a 
period; we require eight and a half years. Cp. however Isocr. 
Panath. (xii.) 62, ἐν ἢ τὴν μὲν ἡμετέραν εὕροι τις ἄν, ἁπάντων αὐτῇ καὶ 
τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων ἐπιθεμένων, ἔτη δέκα τούτοις ἀντισχεῖν 
δυνηθεῖσαν,---α rhetorical passage from which nothing can be 
inferred, and in which ἔτη δέκα is probably a reminiscence of the 
Trojan War. 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 47 


5) In v. 25 fin. καὶ ἐπὶ ἐξ ἔτη μὲν καὶ δέκα μῆνας ἀπέσχοντο μὴ ἐπὶ 57 6. 
τὴν γῆν ἑκατέρων στρατεῦσαι, Kriiger wishes to read seven years and 
four months (i. e. down to the fortification of Decelea); Ullrich six 

years and four months (i.e. down to the Sicilian expedition), instead 
of six years and ten months. See Classen, Append. to book v. 
But there is no need to alter the text. 

6) In viii. 29 fin. Madvig’s conjecture τριάκοντα, for τρία (which 
is wanting altogether in the reading of the Vatican MS), gives 
a better sense: but the MS. reading is defensible. 

For a further discussion of all these places see notes. 

Difficulties with regard to the number of ships mentioned by 
Thucydides occur in iv. 11 init., viii. 10 med., 30, 99 fin., 103 init. 
104 init. But it is very unlikely that in all these passages, which 
camumot be explained by any common error, the text should be 
equally corrupt. 

"his analysis of passages in which suspicion has been entertained 
of muumbers shows that the confusion of them with one another is 
hot a common error in the MSS. of Thucydides. And, however 
low the authority of MSS. in regard to numerals may be rated, it is 
in itself improbable that the MSS. should have erred all together 

in 50 xmany passages when there is an appearance of a difficulty 
in the narrative. 


Hloredsaara δὲ πέμψαντες μὲν καὶ παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίους πρέσβεις, εἴ πως 58. 1. 
πείσεεςα:» μὴ σφῶν πέρι νεωτερίζειν μηδέν, ἐλθόντες δὲ καὶ ἐς τὴν Λακεδαί- 
μονα ραςτὰ Ἑορινθίων [ἔπρασσον], ὅπως ἑτοιμάσαιντο τιμωρίαν, ἣν δέῃ, 
ἐπειδὴ Qe τε ᾿Αθηναίων ἐκ πολλοῦ πράσσοντες οὐδὲν εὕροντο ἐπιτήδειον, ἀλλ᾽ 
αἱ vies αἱ ἐπὶ Μακεδονίαν καὶ ἐπὶ σφᾶς ὁμοίως ἔπλεον, καὶ τὰ τέλη τῶν 
Λακιδα ας ας μονίων ὑπέσχετο αὐτοῖς, ἣν ἐπὶ Ποτίδαιαν ἴωσιν ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἐς τὴν 
᾿Απυςχὰν Ψ ἐσβαλεῖν, τότε δὴ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀφίστανται μετὰ Χαλκι- 
δέων mee) Βοττιαίων κοινῇ ξυνομόσαντες. 

remssov is superfluous, and, not being connected with a¢i- 
TOT «=a which follows, causes an asyndeton. There is the further 
diffic'wm tty that ἔπρασσον cannot be joined in sense with ἐλθόντες μέν, 
but Ὡ» γ)γ with πράσσοντες δέ, for the Potidaeans did not go to Athens 
for me). If ἔπρασσον is not a gloss, it is best to take ἐλθόντες ... ἦν 
δέῃ ASS a parenthesis. 


δ8. 1. 


60. 2. 


48 THUCYDIDES. 
εὕροντο (med.), not ‘found,’ but ‘ obtained no satisfaction.’ 


ἐστρατήγει δὲ αὐτῶν ᾿Αριστεὺς ὁ ᾿Αδειμάντον, κατὰ φιλίαν Te αὐτοῦ οὐχ 
ἥκιστα οἱ πλεῖστοι ἐκ Κορίνθου στρατιῶται ἐθελονταὶ ξυνέσποντο" ἦν γὰρ 
τοῖς Ποτιδαιάταις ἀεί ποτε ἐπιτήδειος. 

γάρ refers to the clause ἐστρατήγει δὲ αὐτῶν x.r.A. not to the words 
immediately preceding, which are subordinate in sense, and might 
have been expressed, not κατὰ φιλίαν re αὐτοῦ, but οὗ κατὰ φιλίαν 


ξυνέσποντο. 


καὶ ἀφικνοῦνται τεσσαρακοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὕστερον ἐπὶ Θράκης ἢ Ποτίδαια 
ἀπέστη. See note on iii. 92, 4. 


προσκαθεζόμενοι δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν Πύδναν ἐπολιόρκησαν μέν, ἔπειτα δὲ 
ξύμβασιν ποιησάμενοι καὶ ξυμμαχίαν ἀναγκαίαν πρὸς τὸν Περδίκκαν, ὡς 
αὐτοὺς κατήπειγεν ἡ Ποτίδαια καὶ ὁ ᾿Αριστεὺς παρεληλυθώς, ἀπανίστανται 


. ἐκ τῆς Μακεδονίας. καὶ ἀφικόμενοι ἐς Βέροιαν κἀκεῖθεν ἐπιστρέψαντες καὶ 


πειράσαντες πρῶτον τοῦ χωρίου καὶ οὐχ ἑλόντες ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ γὴν πρὸς 
τὴν Ποτίδαιαν τρισχιλίοις μὲν ὁπλίταις ἑαυτῶν, χωρὶς δὲ τῶν ξυμμάχων 
πολλοῖς, ἱππεῦσι δὲ ἑξακοσίοις Μακεδόνων τοῖς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Παυ- 
caviov' ἅμα δὲ νῆες παρέπλεον ἑβδομήκοντα. κατ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ προϊόντες 
τριταῖοι ἀφίκοντο ἐς Γίγωνον καὶ ἐστρατοπεδεύσαντο. 

There are considerable difficulties in this passage. 

a) Why should the Athenians have attacked a place belonging 
to Perdiccas, with whom they had just concluded an alliance? 
unless we suppose that his defection (i. 62 init.) had already oc- 
curred; but of this Thucydides says nothing here. Moreover 
they were in a hurry to reach Potidaea (ὡς αὐτοὺς κατήπειγεν ἡ 
Ποτίδαια). 

6) The order of the words is strange. πειράσαντες τοῦ χωρίον 
should come before ἐπιστρέψαντες. . 

c) Beroea is at least sixty miles from Gigonus. It is impossible 
that this distance could have been traversed by an army marching 
slowly (κατ᾽ ὀλίγον προϊόντες) in two or three days. 

It has been conjectured that another Beroea, and not the well- 
known place of that name, is intended. In support of this con- 
jecture Grote appeals to Stephanus Byzantinus. Stephanus speaks 


NOTES, BOOK I. 49 


@) ofa town Beres (Bépns πόλις Θράκης, ἀπὸ Bepnros νἱοῦ Μακεδόνος, 6]͵ 3. 

δ) of the well-known Beroea in Macedonia, ¢) of Beroea in Syria. 

This Beres is perhaps the same as the town of Beroea or Beroé 

ἴῃ Thrace, mentioned by other Byzantine writers, and by Ammianus 

Marcellinus. But a) it may not have existed at this time; 3) it 

Was over a hundred miles from the head of the Thermaic Gulf. 

(See Dict. of Geography, 5. v. Beroea.) And c) Thucydides would 
Hot have mentioned another Beroea without distinguishing it from 
the better-known place of the same name. : 

It has been conjectured (by Pluygers, see Cobet, Nov. Lect. p. 
382,) that instead of ἐπιστρέψαντες we should read ἐπὶ Στρέψαν. This 
€Me€ndation is ingenious, and meets the difficulty of the order of 
the words. It also makes it possible that the Athenians went to 

©roea with a friendly and not with a hostile purpose. It might 

further explain the distance traversed by the army in three days, 
Mf we knew exactly where Strepsa was. 

The name Στρεψαῖοι occurs repeatedly, between the years 454— 
431, in the lists of tributary cities discovered on the Acropolis, and 
edited by Boeckh (Staatshaushaltung der Athener, 2nd ed.) and 
U. Kdhler. But nothing can hence be inferred as to the position 
ofthe town. For a) its place in the lists varies, 5) the towns men- 
tioned in the lists are not arranged in any exact order of place. 
Strepsa is also mentioned by Aeschines, F. L. (ii.) 29, εἰληφότος δὲ 
(scil. τοῦ Παυσανίου) ᾿Ανθεμοῦντα καὶ Θέρμην καὶ Στρέψαν. And if we could 
be sure that Aeschines is naming these three places in their true 

geographical order, we might infer from this passage that the position 

of Strepsa was not far from that required by the context in Thu- 
cydides. The name Στρέψα or Στρεψαῖοι is also found in Stephanus 

Byzantinus, Hesychius, and Harpocration, and is quoted by Photius 

from Ar. (Fragm. 174. 19.) But if the proposed emendation is 

adopted, a new difficulty arises: Beroea is then mentioned for no 
apparent reason, and without any hint, such as is afforded by the 
word ἐπιστρέψαντες, that it lay quite out of the direct road. 

Considering that the situation of the place is really unknown to 
us, and that Thucydides gives no sufficient indication of the route 
pursued by the Athenians, we may regard the conjecture, though 
possible, as extremely uncertain. 

VOL. IL E 


.62. 1. 


63. 1. 


63. 3. 


ko THUCYDIDES. 


Ποτιδαιᾶται δὲ καὶ of μετὰ ᾿Αριστέως Πελοποννήσιοι προσδεχόμενοι τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο πρὸς ᾿Ολύνθου ἐν τῴ ἰσθμῴ, καὶ ἀγορὰν ἔξω τῆς 
πόλεως ἐπεποίηντο. 

The reading required by the context is πρὸς Ὀλύνθου. ‘This has 
the authority of the Laurentian MS. The other readings, πρὸ 
᾿οΟλύνθου, Or πρὸς ᾿Ολύνθῳ, are indefensible. For the troops com- - 
manded by Aristeus must have been stationed in the neighbourhood 
of Potidaea, where they had their market, not in the neighbourhood 
of Olynthus, which was seven miles distant and heyond the isthmus. 
And Aristeus cannot have drawn up his own troops ‘in front of’ 
or ‘close to Olynthus,’ and those of the Chalcidians etc. ‘in 
Olynthus,’ for in that case a2) he would have left Potidaea, which 
was his base of operations, undefended, and 4) he could not have 
carried out his intention of placing the Athenians between two fires 
(ἐν μέσῳ ποιεῖν αὐτῶν τοὺς πολεμίους, 62 med.). 


ἠπόρησε μὲν ὁποτέρωσε διακινδυνεύσῃ χωρήσας, ἣ ἐπὶ τῆς Ὀλύνθου ἣ es 
τὴν Ποτίδαιαν, ἔδυξε 8 οὖν ξυναγαγόντι τοὺς μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ὡς ἐς ἐλάχιστον 
χωρίον, δρόμῳ βιάσασθαι ἐς τὴν Ποτίδαιαν. 

δ᾽ οὖν is a correction for γοῦν, the restrictive or argumentative 
sense of which appears quite out of place here. A few inferior 
MSS. read ἔδοξεν οὖν. 


pera δὲ τὴν μάχην τροπαῖον ἔστησαν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς ὗπο- 
σπόνδους ἀπέδοσαν τοῖς Ποτιδαιάταις. 

The inscription in honour of the dead who fell in the battle of 
Potidaea has been discovered in or near the Ceramicus. 

It is restored and edited in the following form by Messrs. Newton 
and Hicks (Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part I. 
Attika ; see also Boeckh, Ὁ. I. G. vol. i. no. 170) :— 

ἀθάνατόν pe θα[νοῦσι χάριν θέσαν' ol yap ἐν ὅπλοις (?) 
σημαίνειν ἀρετ[ὴν ἱέμενοι σφετέραν (9) 

καὶ προγόνω[ν] σθέν[ο]» [ἐσθλὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔχοντες (?) 
νίκην εὐπόλεμομ (SiC) μνῆμ᾽ ἔλαβο[ν σἸφ[ erépov. 

αἰθὴρ μὲμ (Sic) ψυχὰς ὑπεδέξατο, σώ[ματα δὲ χθὼν 
τῶνδε" Ποτειδαίας δ᾽ ἀμφὶ πύλας ἔλ[ασαν. 


NOTES, BOOK I. 51 


ἐχθρῶν δ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἔχουσι τάφον μέρος, [ol δὲ φυγόντες 63. 3. 
τεῖχος πιστοτάτην éAwid’ (sic) ἔθεντο [ Biov. 

ἄνδρας μὲμ (sic) πόλις ἥδε ποθεῖ καὶ δη[μος ᾿Ερεχθέως, 
πρόσθε Ποτειδαίας οἱ θάνον ἐν πρ[ ομάχοις, 

παῖδες ᾿Αθηναίων, ψυχὰς δ᾽ ἀντίῤῥοπα θέντες 
ἠ[λλ]άξαντ᾽ ἀρετὴν καὶ πατρ[ (δ᾽) εὐκλέϊσαν. 


ὡς δ᾽ οὐκ ἔπειθε, βουλόμενος τὰ ἐπὶ τούτοις παρασκενάζειν x.1.X. 65. I. 
τὰ ἐπὶ rovrois=‘ what was to be done thereupon,’ or ‘ under the 
circumstances:’ with special ‘reference to the preceding words, 
‘after the refusal of the garrison to sail out. The meaning is 
illustrated by vi. 45 init. τοῖς δὲ Συράκοσίοις ἐν τούτῳ πολλαχόθεν re ἤδη 
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν κατασκόπων σαφῆ ἠγγέλλετο ὅτι ἐν Ῥηγίῳ al νῆές εἰσι᾽ καὶ ὡς 
ἐπὶ τούτοις παρεσκευάζοντο πάσῃ τῇ γνώμῃ καὶ οὐκέτι ἠπίστουν. 


ὅτι σπονδάς τε λελυκότες εἶεν καὶ ἀδικοῖεν τὴν Πελοπόννησον. 67. τ. 
For σπονδάς without the article cp. note on i. 53. 2. 


Αἰγινῆταί re φανερῶς μὲν οὐ πρεσβευόμενοι, δεδιότες τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους 67. 2. 
πρύφα δὲ οὐχ ἥκιστα per’ αὐτῶν ἐνῆγον τὸν πόλεμον. 

I) φανερῶς οὐ πρεσβευόμενοι and κρύφα are two qualifications of the 
verb ἐνῆγον, opposed to each other by μέν and δέ: 

Or 2) πρεσβευόμενοι may be supplied with κρύφα δέ. 


τὸ πιστὸν ὑμᾶς, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, τῆς καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς πολιτείας καὶ 68. I. 
ὁμιλίας ἀπιστοτέρονς ἐς τοὺς ἄλλους ἣν τι λέγωμεν καθίστησι. 

The general meaning is, ‘ You are too apt to believe that all the 
world are honourable men like yourselves, and to distrust those 
who say otherwise.’ 

1)* There is a transition from the third person (és τοὺς ἄλλους) to 
the first (λέγωμεν). ‘ Your trust in one another makes you distrust 
us others if we say anything :’ i.e. ‘makes you distrust charges 
brought by others like ourselves,’ dmororépous is to be taken with 
de τοὺς ἄλλους, and ἥν τι λέγωμεν is a litotes, ‘if we have anything 
to say.’ τὸ πιστόν must mean not ‘ good faith,’ but ‘trustfulness.’ 
The sense thus given to πιστόν and ἀπιστοτέρους is identical. 

Or 2) és τοὺς ἄλλους may be taken with jy re λέγωμεν, ‘ Your own 
good faith makes you incredulous of us if we say anything against 

E 2 


68. I. 


68. 2. 


69. I. 


69. 2. 


52 THUCYDIDES. 


others.’ But the order of the words and the parallelism of the 
clauses are against this interpretation. For ἀπιστοτέρους ἐς τοὺς 
ἄλλους answers tO τὸ πιστὸν τῆς καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς πολιτείας. 

Or 3) ἐς τοὺς ἄλλους may be taken in a somewhat different sense, 
and, referring not to the Corinthians but to the Athenians, with 
ἀπιστοτέρους, ‘indisposed to believe about others:” ἥν τε λέγωμεν 
being added as an explanation; ‘if we say anything against them.’ 

According to 3) as well as 2) τὸ πιστόν is to be taken in the sense 
of ‘ good faith.’ 


ov περὶ ὧν ἐδιδάσκομεν ἑκάστοτε Thy μάθησιν ἐποιεῖσθε. 

τὴν μάθησιν ἐποιεῖσθε, Something more than ἐμανθάνετε, ‘you took 
no pains to be informed,’ ‘did not attend to the information which 
we gave you.’ 


od γὰρ ὁ δουλωσάμενος, ἄλλ᾽ ὁ δυνάμενος μὲν παῦσαι, περιορῶν δέ, 
ἀληθέστερον αὐτὸ δρᾷ, εἴπερ καὶ τὴν ἀξίωσιν τῆς ἀρετῆς ὡς ἔλενθερῶν τὴν 
Ἑλλάδα φέρεται. 
εἴπερ καί κιτιλ. ‘if, as is actually the case, he further enjoys the 
reputation of superior merit or virtue,’ etc. εἴπερ καί igs put where 
we might have expected ἄλλως re καὶ εἰ, because, although the 
preceding statement is general in form, the speaker is really think- 
ing only of the case of the Lacedaemonians. 


μόλις δὲ νῦν re ξυνήλθομεν καὶ οὐδὲ νῦν ἐπὶ φανεροῖς. χρῆν γὰρ οὐκ ef 
ἀδικούμεθα ἔτι σκοπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἀμυνούμεθα. οἱ γὰρ δρῶντες βεβου- 
λευμένοι πρὸς οὐ διεγνωκότας, ἤδη καὶ οὐ μέλλοντες, ἐπέρχονται. 

1) χρῆν γάρ, i.e. εἰ γὰρ ἐπὶ φανεροῖς ξυνήλθομεν, χρὴν [ἀν] σκοπεῖν x.r.d, 
‘for if we had any definite object it would have been our business 
to have been considering, not whether we were wronged, but how 
we should revenge ourselves.’ Or 2)*, χρῆν expresses a past time, 
extending into the present. ‘What we ought to have been con- 
sidering from the first,’ or ‘from the instant we met (ξυνήλθομεν) is 
no longer whether we are wronged, but how we can revenge 
ourselves,’ 

οἱ yap δρῶντες, ‘those who are acting,’ i.e. the Athenians. See 
note on iv. 33. 2. 

βεβουλευμένοι is Opposed to οὐ διεγνωκότας, and ἤδη to μέλλοντες. 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 53 


οἱ μέν ye νεωτεροποιοί, καὶ ἐπινοῆσαι ὀξεῖς καὶ ἐπιτελέσαι ἔργῳ ὃ ἂν 70. 2. 
νῶσιν" ὑμεῖς δὲ τὰ ὑπάρχοντά τε σώζειν καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι μηδὲν καὶ ἔργῳ 
οὐδὲ τἀναγκαῖα ἐξικέσθαι. 

The infinitives, σώζειν, ἐπιγνῶναι, ἐξικέσθαι, are probably governed, 
not by ὀξεῖς, but by some general notion of ‘skilled’ or ‘ready,’ 
which is supplied from it. Cp. however iii, 38 fin. ἀπατᾶσθαι 


ἄριστοι «7.2. 


ἔτι δὲ τοῖς μὲν σώμασιν ἀλλοτριωτάτοις ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως χρῶνται, τῇ 7O. 6. 
γνώμῃ δὲ οἰκειοτάτῃ ἐς τὸ πράσσειν τι ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς. 

A somewhat forced antithesis between ἀλλοτριωτάτοις and οἰκειοτάτῃ 
is the veil of a noble sentiment. ‘Their bodies they throw away, 
as freely as though they did not belong to them, in the service of 
their country: their minds they jealously preserve as the thing 
dearest to them, that they may use them on her behalf.’ Or, in 
other words, ‘their outer self is nothing to them, their inner self 
everything, because they can serve their country best by a willing- 
ness to sacrifice the one and by a determination to preserve the 
other.’ 

γνώμῃ here includes the idea of the spirit, purpose, or resolution, 
which an Athenian never loses. Compare other passages in which 
Thucydides speaks of men being conquered by fortune though 
their resolution is unconquered, ii. 87 init., vi. 11 fin., 72 init. 

The thought is further developed in what follows. οἰκεῖα just 
below corresponds to οἰκειοτάτῃ. 


καὶ ἃ μὲν ἂν ἐπινοήσαντες μὴ ἐξέλθωσιν, οἰκεῖα στέρεσθαι ἡγοῦνται, ἃ δ᾽ 70. 7. 
ἂν ἐπελθόντες κτήσωνται, ὀλίγα πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα τυχεῖν πράξαντες. 

τυχεῖν is significant, though unemphatic. ‘They seem to have 
gained little in comparison with what they will gain, and that 
little by chance.’ Or more simply, ‘Anything which they have 
succeeded in effecting,’ or ‘which they have just effected, seems 
to them a small matter in comparison of what they are about 
to effect.’ 


καὶ ἀπολαύουσιν ἔλάχιστα τῶν ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ κτᾶσθαι καὶ μήτε 0. 8. 


ἑορτὴν ἄλλο τι ἡγεῖσθαι ἣ τὸ τὰ δέοντα πρᾶξαι, ξυμφοράν τε οὐχ ἧσσον 
ἡσυχίαν ἀπράγμονα ἣ ἀσχολίαν ἐπίπονον. 


70. 8. 


71. I. 


54. THUCYDIDES. 


Compare Burke, Speech on American Taxation (of Lord Gren- 
ville), ‘He took public business, not as a duty which he was to 
fulfil, but as a pleasure which he was to enjoy.’ The same thought 
recurs, a little exaggerated, in the ‘Letter to a Noble Lord.’ 
Speaking of his own son, Burke says, ‘He was made a public 
creature ; and had no enjoyment whatever, but in the performance 
of some duty,’ 

Cp. also Shakespeare, Macbeth, i. 4, ‘The rest is labour, which 
is not used for you:’ Goethe, Pandora (sub fin.}— 

‘Prometheus. Was kiindest du fiir Feste mir? Sie lieb ich nicht; 
Erholung reichet Miiden jede Nacht genug. 
Des echten Mannes wahre Feier ist die That !’ 


καὶ οἴεσθε τὴν ἡσυχίαν οὐ τούτοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀρκεῖν, of 
ἂν τῇ μὲν παρασκευῇ δίκαια πράσσωσι, τῇ δὲ γνώμῃ, ἣν ἀδικῶνται, δῆλοι 
ὦσι μὴ ἐπιτρέψοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ λυπεῖν τε ἄλλους καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀμυνό- 
μένοι μὴ βλάπτεσθαι τὸ ἴσον νέμετε. 

τῇ μὲν παρασκευῇ---τῇ δὲ γνώμῃ is a variation of Thucydides’ 
favourite antithesis between the outward and inward. ‘Who never 
use their material force unjustly, but who show a temper of mind 
which is prepared to resist if necessary.’ The two datives, although 
they answer to one another, are in slightly different constructions : 
τῇ παρασκεύῃ being ‘an instrumental dative, τῇ γνώμῃ, taken with δῆλοε 
dot, a dative of manner. 

ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ λυπεῖν «.r.A. 1)* ‘You deal justice to your neighbours 
on the principle of doing no harm to any one and defending your- 


‘selves in such a way as not to be injured,’ in other words, your 


policy is simply inoffensive and defensive. At a time when the 
Athenians were robbing Hellas of her liberties this apathy might 
fairly be denounced as a crime. ‘Non-interference’ was ‘ political 
suicide’ (Mazzini). 

The other explanation, 2) ‘on the principle of not incurring any 
loss in self-defence,’ as Mr. Wilkins points out in his note on the 
passage, is less suitable to the position of μή: and would have 
required ἐπὶ τῷ μήτε λυπεῖν ἄλλους μήτε αὐτοὶ ἀμυνόμενοι βλάπτεσθαι. 
The place of ἀμυνόμενοι before μή shows that it is the emphatic 
word, and expresses what the Lacedaemonians did do and not 


NOTES, BOOK J. 55 


what they failed to do,—‘to defend yourselves so as to avoid 71. I. 
injury,’ not ‘to avoid injuring yourselves by defending yourselves.’ 


ἀνάγκη δ' ὥσπερ τέχνης ἀεὶ τὰ ἐπιγιγνόμενα κρατεῖν. 71. 2. 
τέχνης, which is generally taken as genitive after τὰ ἐπιγιγνόμενα 
repeated, may also be a genitive of relation, ‘as in the case of 
the arts.’ Cp. note on i. 142 fin. rd δὲ ναυτικὸν τέχνης ἐστὶν ὥσπερ 
καὶ ἄλλο τι. 


δρῷμεν δ᾽ ἂν ἄδικον οὐδὲν οὔτε πρὸς θεῶν τῶν ὁρκίων οὔτε πρὸς ἀνθρώπων 71. 5. 
τῶν αἰσθανομένων, 1)* ‘men who look on:’ who are witnesses in 
one way as the Gods are in another, whether with the outward eye 
or with the mind. 
Or 2) ‘men who appreciate the situation.’ Compare v. 26 fin. 
αἰσθανόμενος τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, ‘old enough to understand.’ 


? 


βουλομένων δὲ ὑμῶν προθύμων εἶναι, μενοῦμεν. οὔτε γὰρ ὅσια dv ποιοῖμεν 71. 6. 
μεταβαλλόμενοι οὔτε ξυνηθεστέρους ἂν ἄλλους εὕροιμεν. 

With οὔτε yap... ποιοῖμεν, βουλομένων ὑμῶν προθύμων εἶναι is still to 
be supplied; so that the words do not contradict δρῷμεν δ᾽ ἂν 
ἄδικον οὐδέν above. 


τῶν δὲ ᾿Αθηναίων, ἔτυχε γὰρ πρεσβεία πρότερον ἐν τῇ Λακεδαίμονι περὶ 72. I. 
ἄλλων παροῦσα, καὶ ὡς ἥσθοντο τῶν λόγων, ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς παριτητέα ἐς τοὺς 
Λακεδαιμονίους εἶναι. 

The sentence is a confusion’ οὗ two constructions. It might have 
Tun of δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἔτυχε γὰρ πρεσβεία, ὡς nobovro, or τῶν δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων 
ἔτυχε πρεσβεία, καὶ ὡς ἤσθοντο. The Greek fondness for expressing 
logical relations has inserted γάρ out of place. The writer 
begins as if γάρ were not to follow, and after γάρ has been intro- 
duced resumes the sentence, in the words καὶ ὡς ἤσθοντο τῶν λόγων, 
as if yap had not preceded. 


τὰ δὲ Μηδικὰ καὶ ὅσα αὐτοὶ ξύνιστε͵ εἶ καὶ δι᾿’ ὄχλου μᾶλλον ἔσται det 78. 2. 
προβαλλομένοις, ἀνάγκη λέγειν. 

1)* δὲ ὄχλου, to the Athenians themselves. μᾶλλον, disagreeable 
rather than agreeable. Or 2) δ ὄχλου may refer to the hearers, in 


78. 2. 


74. I. 


78. 1. 


56 «THUCYDIDES. 


which case προβαλλομένοις must be taken as a dative of r aioe 
‘in relation to us who bring them forward,’ and not with &’ sxe 
‘although we who are always bringing them forward may v=" 
likely find that they are more disagreeable than agreeable to | 
hearers.’ The ambiguity is not greater than in iv. 10 med. imoa 
ρήσασι δέ, καίπερ χαλεπὸν ὄν, εὔπορον ἔσται. 


But 1)* is more consistent with the haughty tone of the speec—= s 


ναῦς μέν ye ἐς τὰς τετρακοσίας ὀλίγῳ ἐλάσσους τῶν δύο μοιρῶν x.t.L— 

The reading τετρακυσίας must be retained; the other, τριακοσ- 
being a palpable correction, and being supported only by fiom 
bad MSS. 

According to Herodotus the actual number of triremes was 8755 
(viii. 48); in the battle itself 380 (viii. 82), two ships having 
deserted from the enemy. Of these the Athenians supplied 180 
(viii. 44), or, as Themistocles is made to say in another place, 200. 
(viii. 61), perhaps including the twenty which they had lent to the 
Chalcidians (viii. 1). The whole number in Aesch. Pers. 338 is 
300 or 310,— 

καὶ γὰρ Ἕλλησιν μὲν ἦν 
ὁ πᾶς ἀριθμὸς ἐς τριακάδας δέκα 
ναῶν, δεκὰς δ᾽ ἦν τῶνδε χωρὶς ἔκκριτος. 

But then it must be remembered that the poet is dwelling upon 
the numerical inferiority of the Greek fleet, in order to exalt its 
victory. 

The numbers in the text may be the exaggeration of the Athe- 
nian orator into whose mouth the speech is put, or they may be 
founded on some popular estimate. 


Gp ἄξιοί ἐσμεν, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, καὶ προθυμίας ἕνεκα τῆς τότε καὶ γνώμης 
ξυνέσεως, ἀρχῆς γε ἧς ἔχομεν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μὴ οὕτως ἄγαν ἐπιφθόνως 
διακεῖσθαι : 

dpa is here put for dp’ οὐ ; ‘are we not?’ or, more correctly, the 
delicacy of Attic speech forbears to ask for a distinct answer even 
where the case is abundantly clear. For examples see Hartung, 5. 2. 
2. 2 foll., (who, however, explains &pa here as expressing a union 
of question and inference.) Cp. especially Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 40, dpa, 
ἔφη, ὦ ἄνδρες, viv μὲν καιρὸς διαλυθῆναι ; ‘is it not time to disperse ?’ 


NOTES, BOOK ἢ 57 


“-γτηώμης ξυνέσεως, the ‘ability of mind,’ or ‘sagacity of judg- 78. τ. 
mue=xut, which we showed. γνώμης, genitive of the subject after 
fara Ors, 


ws aan: δὲ ἀνεπίφθυνον τὰ ξυμφέροντα τῶν μεγίστων πέρι κινδύνων εὖ 76. 5. 
τά Θα- «υ0α. 
πὶ > τὰ ξυμφέροντα εὖ τίθεσθαι. A pleonastic expression. We should 
hawe expected simply τὰ παρόντα εὖ τίθεσθαι. But the participle is 
used in a proleptic sense. Not ‘rightly to arrange their interests 
when they have to meet the greatest dangers,’ but ‘rightly to 
arrange things so as to be for their interest.’ 
Or 2) τὰ ξυμφέροντα εὖ τίθεσθαι may be taken, like εὐτυχίαν τὴν 
ταροῦσαν καλῶς τίθεσθαι iv. 17 med., ‘making good use of the 
advantages which offer.’ But the other explanation, though more 
dFicult, is more suitable to the context. For the Athenians are 
dS cCribing their situation at the time, not as advantageous, but 
% full of danger. 
Or τῶν μεγίστων πέρι κινδύνων cp. i. 123 init. περὶ δὲ τῶν ἔπειτα 
PENA ὄντων τοῖς παροῦσι βοηθοῦντας χρὴ ἐπιταλαιπωρεῖν. 


Bal ἐλασσούμενοι γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ξυμβολαίαις πρὸς τοὺς ξυμμάχους δίκαις 77. 1, 
ἢ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις νόμοις ποιήσαντες τὰς κρίσεις φιλοδικεῖν 

ier. 

1)* ‘ For because,’ or ‘whereas, we even (xai) give up our just 
Tights and judge our allies in our own dicasteries, and by the 
Same law which judges ourselves, we are thought litigious.’ The 
two clauses ἐλασσούμενοι.... δίκαις : παρ᾽ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς... κρίσεις present 
different aspects of the same idea. Hence καί---καί cannot be 
connected with each other so as to mean ‘both’—‘and.’ The 
comma after δίκαις is better omitted. 

Or 2) xai—yadp may be taken together. ‘And the proof is that, 
because we remit our rights, etc., we are thought litigious.’ 

It has been attempted to find in the two clauses a distinction 
between the treatment of the autonomous allies (Chios and Lesbos) 
with whom δίκαι ἀπὸ ξυμβόλων in the ordinary sense are supposed 
to have been held, and that of the ξύμμαχοι ὑπήκοοι who were com- 
pelled to resort for justice to Athens. But a) though such a 


58 THUCYDIDES. 


77. 1. distinction may have existed, nothing is anywhere said of it, 
and 4) in this passage the allusion, if intended, would have been 
more fully expressed. 

ξυμβολαίαι Sixar=dicas ἀπὸ συμβόλων. The word σύμβολα generally 
refers to the treaties regulating disputes between members of inde- 
pendent states. It here seems to be applied by analogy to a 
similar arrangement between Athens and her allies. 

But it cannot be considered certain that the term δίκαι ἀπὸ ovp- 
βόλων was applied to suits between Athens and her allies. 

On the one hand, Pollux, Hesychius, and the author of one of the 
Lexicons (6) in Bekker’s Anecdota, professing to quote Aristotle 
(᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀπὸ συμβόλων ἐδίκαζον τοῖς ὑπηκόοις" οὕτως ᾿Αριστοτέλης), Say 
that the term was so applied. But the entire statement may arise 
out of an imperfect understanding of the words of Thucydides, 
and we cannot rely upon the reference to Aristotle, occurring as it 
does in a writing of unknown but certainly late date. 

On the other hand, there is a passage in Antiphon which seems 
to favour the opposite view, De Caed. Herod. (v.) 78, εἰ δ᾽ ἐν Αἴνῳ 
χωροφιλεῖ, τοῦτο οὐκ ἀποστερῶν ye τῶν els τὴν πόλιν ἑαυτὸν οὐδένος οὐδ᾽ 
ἑτέρας πόλεως πολίτης γεγενημένος, ὥσπερ ἑτέρους ὁρῶ τοὺς μὲν εἰς τὴν 
ἤπειρον ἰόντας καὶ οἰκοῦντας ἐν τοῖς πολεμίοις τοῖς ὑμετέροις καὶ δίκας ἀπὸ 
ξυμβόλων ὑμῖν δικαζομένους, οὐδὲ φεύγων τὸ πλῆθος τὸ ὑμέτερον, τοὺς δ᾽ 
οἵους ὑμεῖς μισῶν συκοφάντας. The defendant is speaking of the 
loyalty shown by his father, a citizen of Mitylene, towards Athens 
during the time following the revolt and reduction of Mitylene. 
The words seem to imply that he might have gone into a foreign 
country, which the writer rhetorically calls an enemies’ country, and 
thereby have obtained the right of carrying on δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων, 
which he had not possessed as a member of an allied and subject 
State. 

ξυμβόλαιαι δίκαι has therefore been taken to mean ‘suits relating to. 
contracts.’ But why these only, and not criminal, or other civil, suits? 

See, on the whole subject, Platner, Der Attische Process, i. 
Ῥ. 111, (who gives a different and somewhat forced explanation of 
the passage in Antiphon.) 

ποιήσαντες, instituting, not holding, which would be ποιούμενοι 
(pres. middle, not aor. active). 


NOTES, BOOK J, 59 


οἱ δὲ εἰθισμένοι πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσον ὁμιλεῖν, ἣν Te παρὰ Td ph οἴεσθαι 77. 3. 
Χρῆναι ἣ γνώμῃ, ὃ δυνάμει τῇ διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ἔλασσωθῶσιν, οὐ 
τοῦ πλέονος μὴ στερισκόμενοι χάριν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐνδεοῦς χαλεπώτερον 
φέρουσιν, ἣ εἰ ἀπὸ πρώτης ἀποθέμενοι τὸν νόμον φανερῶς ἐπλεονεκτοῦμεν. 

παρὰ τὸ μὴ οἴεσθαι χρῆναιΞ-ε παρὰ τὸ οἴεσθαι μὴ χρῆναι, ‘contrary to 
their opinion that it is wrong,’ i.e. to their opinion that what they 
suffer in the particular case is unjust. The negative is connected 
with the main verb, as in expressions like οὐκ οἶμαι χρῆναι, of 
φημι χρῆναι. 

τοῦ ἐνδεοῦς, they are angry ‘at the lack of some part,’ or ‘at not 
obtaining the whole’ of the advantages which they claim ; opposed, 
not directly but by inference, as ‘the smaller part’ to τοῦ πλέονος, 
the larger. τοῦ ἐνδεοῦς is a genitive of reference after χαλεπῶς 
φέρειν. Compare ii. 62 med. χαλεπῶς φέρειν αὐτῶν. 


ἀδικούμενοί re, ὡς ἔοικεν, of ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον ὀργίζονται ἣ βιαζάμενοι. '7'7. 4. 
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου δοκεῖ πλεονεκτεῖσθαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείσσονος 
καταναγκάζεσθαι. 

ἴσου and κρείσσονος are neuter, not masculine, as the frequency of 
the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου and the use of the preposition ἀπό, not 
ὑπό, Show. 

1)* ‘The one case appears to be an over-reaching where men 
are equal, the other to be an act of compulsion where there is 
superiority.’ πλεονεκτεῖσθαι = πλεονέκτημα εἶναι, ‘to be a case of 
unfair advantage.’ καταναγκάζεσθαι::- ἀνάγκη εἶναι, ‘to be a case of 
compulsion.’ 

Or 2) τὸ μέν, τὸ δέ are adverbial accusatives. We may translate, 
a) ‘for in the one case he’ (supplied from of ἄνθρωποι) ‘seems to 
be defrauded.’ Or 5)—8oxei being impersonal—‘ In the one case 
there seems to be an unfair advantage taken,’ etc. 

Compare for the passive sense of πλεονεκτεῖσθαι, Xen. Mem. iii. 
δ. 2, Βοιωτῶν μὲν yap πολλοὶ πλεονεκτούμενοι ὑπὸ Θηβαίων δυσμενῶς 
αὐτοῖς ἔχουσιν. 


μηκυνόμενος γὰρ φιλεῖ ἐς τύχας τὰ πολλὰ περιίστασθαι, ὧν ἴσον τε ἀπέχο- 78. 2. 
μεν, καὶ ὁποτέρως ἔσται ἐν ἀδήλῳ κινδυνεύεται. 
ὧν ἴσον τε ἀπέχομεν, literally, ‘from which we are both equally 


78. 2. 


78. 4. 


80. I. 


80. 3. 


81. 4. 


88. 5. 


60 THUCYDIDES. 


distant,’ i.e. ‘which are beyond the control of either of us.” ὁποτέρως 
ἔσται follows ἐν ἀδήλῳ. Although the clause καὶ... κινδυνεύεται has no 
grammatical connection with ὧν, the connection of idea may be 
given by supplying ἐν αἷς, scil. τύχαις, or, more generally, ἐν ¢, ‘in 
which case,’ after καί : as thus, ὧν ἴσον re ἀπέχομεν καὶ ἐν als, OF ἐν 


@, οὐκ εἰδότες ὁποτέρως ἔσται κινδυνεύομεν. 


λέγομεν ὑμῖν, ἕως ἔτι αὐθαίρετος ἀμφοτέροις ἡ εὐβουλία, σπονδὰς μὴ 
λύειν, μηδὲ παραβαίνειν τοὺς ὅρκυυς. See note on i. 53. 2. 


Kai αὐτὸς πολλῶν ἤδη πολέμων ἔμπειρός εἰμι, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, καὶ ὑμῶν 


τοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡλικίᾳ ὁρῶ «.7.A, 
τοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡλικίᾳ ὁρῶ, 501}, ἐμπείρους ὄντας. 


πρὸς μὲν γὰρ τοὺς Πελοποννησίους καὶ τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας παρόμοιος 
ἡμῶν ἡ ἀλκή. 

‘The Peloponnesians’ and ‘ our neighbours’ are really the same 
persons, but they are presented under different aspects, and the 
difference is emphasized by the repetition of the article; they are 
‘the Peloponnesians,’ and also they are ‘our neighbours.’ Cp. 
Aristot. Pol. iii. 10. 3, ἀλλ᾽ dpa τοὺς ἐλάττους δίκαιον ἄρχειν καὶ τοὺς 


‘ 
πλουσίους ; 


τίς οὖν ἔσται ἡμῶν ὁ πόλεμος : εἰ μὴ yap ἣ ναυσὶ κρατήσομεν ἣ ras 
προσόδους ἀφαιρήσομεν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν τὸ ναυτικὸν τρέφουσι, βλαψόμεθα τὰ 
πλέω. 

βλαψόμεθα τὰ πλέω, literally 1) ‘we shall generally be unsuc- 
cessful,’ or 2) ‘ we shall lose more than our enemies will,’ or 3) ‘we 
shall lose more often than we shall gain.’ 


εἰ yap ἀπαράσκενοι τοῖς τῶν ξυμμάχων ἐγκλήμασιν ἐπειχθέντες τεμοῦμεν 
αὐτήν, ὁρᾶτε, ὅπως μὴ αἴσχιον καὶ ἀπορώτερον τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ πράξ- 
ὠμεν. 

Either 1)* ‘in greater difficulty and disgrace than at present,’ 
αἴσχιον answering to the idea of αἰσχύνη contained in ἐγκλήμασι, and 
referring to the complaints of the allies that Peloponnesus was 
involved in difficulty and disgrace already ; or 2) ‘we shall bring 
difficulty and disgrace upon Peloponnesus rather than upon our 


NOTES, BOOK I. 61 


enemies;’ or 3) ‘dishonour and difficulty rather than ease and 82. 5. 
honour,’ αἴσχιον καὶ ἀπορώτερον -εαἰσχρῶς καὶ ἀπόρως μᾶλλον. Cp. 
note on ii. 40. 1. 

Cp. for 2) and 3) the note on ra πλείω above. 


καὶ ἔστιν ὁ πόλεμος οὐχ ὅπλων τὸ πλέον, ἀλλὰ δαπάνης, δι᾿ ἣν τὰ ὅπλα 88. 2. 
ὠφελεῖ. 

δι’ ἥν, literally, not ‘by which,’ but ‘because of which ;’—‘ which is’ 
not ‘the instrument, but ‘the reason,’ or ‘secret, of success in arms.’ 


καὶ ἅμα ἐλευθέραν καὶ εὐδοξοτάτην πόλιν διὰ παντὸς νεμόμεθα᾽ καὶ δύναται 84. I. 2. 
μάλιστα σωφροσύνη ἔμφρων τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι. μόνοι γὰρ δι’ αὐτὸ εὐπραγίαις 
τε οὐκ ἐξυβρίζομεν, καὶ ξυμφοραῖς ἧσσον ἑτέρων εἴκομεν' τῶν τε ξὺν 
ἐπαίνῳ ἐξοτρυνόντων ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τὰ δεινὰ παρὰ τὸ δοκοῦν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἐπαιρόμεθα 
ἡδονῇ, καὶ ἦν τις ἄρα ξὺν κατηγορίᾳ παροξύνῃ, οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἀχθεσθέντες 
ἀνεπείσθημεν. 

καὶ ἅμα... νεμόμεθα. Another reason why the Lacedaemonians 
could afford to maintain a cautious policy. 

τοῦτο, ‘this caution, referring to τὸ βραδὺ καὶ μέλλον at the be- 
ginning of the chapter, and resumed by δι᾽ αὐτό in the next line. 
μάλιστα, ‘implies these qualities more than any others,’ or ‘above 
all other courses. " 

καὶ δύναται x.r.A. is a proposition which, according to a favourite 
Greek idiom, is qualified in form but not in meaning. No doubt 
is intended. ‘This is very possibly,’ or ‘Who can say that this 
is not?’ are equivalent expressions in English. δύναται σωφροσύνη 
εἶναι in this place=not ‘means moderation,’ but simply ‘may be 
moderation.’ 

fy τις dpa ξὺν κατηγορίᾳ παροξύνῃ, scil. the Corinthian orator. 
Perhaps a reference to the mention of κατηγορία in the Corinthian 
speech, i. 69 fin. ‘You say that you do not accuse us, but we 
do not care if you do.’ 


πολεμικοί τε καὶ εὔβουλοι διὰ τὸ εὔκοσμον γιγνόμεθα, τὸ μὲν ὅτι αἰδὼς 84, 3. 
σωφροσύνης πλεῖστον μετέχει, αἰσχύνης δὲ εὐψυχία, εὔβουλοι δὲ ἀμαθέ- 
στερον τῶν νόμων τῆς ὑπεροψίας παιδευόμενοι, καὶ ξὺν χαλεπότητι σωφρο- 
ψέστερον ἣ ὥστε αὐτῶν ἀνηκουστεῖν, καὶ μή, τὰ ἀχρεῖα ξυνετοὶ ἄγαν ὄντες, 


84. 3. 


62 THUCYDIDES. 


ras τῶν πολεμίων παρασκενὰς λόγῳ καλῶς μεμφόμενοι ἀνομοίως ἔργῳ 
ἐπεξιέναι. 

Either a) ‘the sense of shame enters most largely into’ (or, ‘more 
largely than anything else into,’) ‘the spirit of order,’ or δ) ‘ the 
sense of shame is most largely made up of the spirit of order,’ i. e. 
‘the spirit of order enters most largely into,’ (or ‘is a main ingre- 
dient in,’) ‘the sense of shame.’ It is not quite clear in which of 
these two forms Thucydides means to represent the inseparable 
connection between σωφροσύνη and αἰδώς. But in either case the 
argument is from σωφροσύνη to αἰδώς, not from aides to σωφροσύνη. 
For σωφροσύνη is the resumption of τὸ εὔκοσμον. Cp. iii. 83 init. 
καὶ τὸ εὔηθες, οὗ τὸ γενναῖον πλεῖστον μετέχει, καταγελασθὲν ἠφανίσθη, 
where the argument is from the absence of τὸ εὔηθες to the absence 
of τὸ γενναῖον. 

Although αἰσχύνη is often distinguished from αἰδώς, as the shame 
which follows, from the shame which prevents, an evil act,—cp. 
aides, φόβος ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ Woyou' αἰσχύνη δέ, φόβος én’ αἰσχρῷ πεπραγ- 
μένῳ, Niceph. Greg. see Steph. 8. v. aldcs,—there is no distinction 
in their use here. The variation of the word is only a false attempt 
to evade tautology by a difference of sound which is not one of 
meaning. 

First comes the habit of discipline, τὸ εὔκοσμον, then the spirit of 
obedience, then the fine sense of honour, which makes cowardice 
impossible. The connection of ideas recalls the familiar passage 
of Burke, ‘Never, never more shall we behold that generous 
loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified 
obedience, that subordination of the heart’ (σωφροσύνη), ‘which kept 
alive even in servitude itself the spirit of an exalted freedom.... 
It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, 
which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage while it 
mitigated ferocity,’ etc. (αἰδώς and εὐψυχία). 

The idea of the connection between αἰδώς and the discipline of 
an army is as old as Homer;—Il. v. 531,— 

αἰδομένων δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν πλέονες σόοι ἠὲ πέφανται. 

ἐπεξιέναι is dependent upon some more general word, such as 
εἰωθότες, understood from παιδευόμενοι. Cp. note oni. 70. 2. Or 
more directly upon παιδενόμενοι, which is used by Xenophon with 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 63 


an infinitive, (Mem. ii. 1. 3, τῷ ἄρχειν παιδενομένῳ) ; the construction 84, 3. 
is here assisted by the words ὥστε ἀνηκουστεῖν which intervene. 

ἐπεξιέναι may be taken either absolutely ‘to carry a purpose 
into execution,’ or with rds τῶν πολεμίων παρασκευάς, ‘to proceed 
against, or meet, the preparations of an enemy in another spirit 
when we have to act.’ In either case ἔργῳ is adverbial, not 
governed by ἐπεξιέναι. 


ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ νῆες καὶ ἵπποι, ἡμῖν δὲ ξύμμαχοι 86, 3. 
ἀγαθοί, obs οὐ παραδοτέα τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐστίν, οὐδὲ δίκαις καὶ λόγοις δια- 
κριτέα μὴ λόγῳ καὶ αὐτοὺς βλαπτομένους, ἀλλὰ τιμωρητέα ἐν τάχει καὶ 
παντὶ σθένει. 

βλαπτομένους 1) refers to the allies, and is dependent partly, like 
οὖς, ON παραδοτέα, partly on some transitive notion to be gathered 
from the intervening words οὐδὲ δίκαις καὶ λόγοις διακριτέα, 

Or 2) it refers to the Lacedaemonians, following διακριτέα as if 
οὐ δεῖ διακρίνειν ἡμᾶς had preceded. 

Or 3)* the words may be regarded as an accusative absolute, 
or remote accusative after the whole clause οὐδὲ δίκαις καὶ λόγοις 
dcaxperéa, (cp. note on i. 98. 3,) referring either αὐ" to the allies, or 
6) to the Lacedaemonians. ‘And we must not be litigating and 
talking, when it is not in word only that “ our allies,” or ‘“‘ we our- 
selves,” are being injured.’ 

1) and 3 4) agree better with the general scope of the passage, 
in which, not the Lacedaemonians, but the allies, are represented 
as the sufferers. Compare ol δ᾽ οὐκέτι μέλλουσι κακῶς πάσχειν just 
above. καὶ αὐτούς, ‘they on their part;’ καί compares the Lace- 
daemonians with the allies, and indicates that, if the aid offered by 
the one be a word only, the sufferings of the other should also be a 
word, 

μή has a subjective or hypothetical sense with a touch of irony, 
‘unless we assume that the allies themselves are suffering in word.’ 


ἡ δὲ διαγνώμη αὕτη τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τοῦ τὰς σπονδὰς λελύσθαι, ἐγένετο ἐν 87 6. 
τῷ τετάρτῳ ἔτει καὶ δεκάτῳ τῶν τριακοντουτίδων σπονδῶν προκεχωρηκυιῶν, 
αἱ ἐγένοντο μετὰ τὰ EvBoixa, . 
προκεχωρηκνιῶν, 501]. ἐς τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος, ‘which had run thus far.’ 


ό4 THUCYDIDES. 


87. 6. For the position of the participle cp. i. 8 med. γνωσθέντες τῇ τε 


980. 2. 


90. 3. 


91. 1. 


91. 6. 


99. 3. 


σκευῇ τῶν ὅπλων ξυντεθαμμένῃ. 


ἠξίουν τε αὐτοὺς μὴ τειχίζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἔξω Πελοποννήσον μᾶλλον 
ὅσοις ξυνειστήκει ξυγκαθελεῖν μετὰ σφῶν τοὺς πε ους. 

ὅσοις ξυνειστήκει, not ‘which had a continuous line of wall 
standing,’ but simply ‘which had a wall standing.’ {vw adds an 
idea of strength or firmness to the simple verb. Cp. note on 
ξυγκατοικίσαντες, ii. 41. 4. 

ὅσοις ξυνειστήκει ΞΞ ὅσοις εἱστήκει καὶ μὴ κατεβέβλητο. 


ἐπισχεῖν μέχρι τοσούτου ἕως ἂν τὸ τεῖχος ἱκανὸν αἴρωσιν ὥστε ἀπομά- 
χεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ὕψους. 

ἕως ἂν αἴρωσιν. The present, where we should have expected the 
aorist, is used to give ἐνάργεια to the description: ‘until they find 
that they are raising the wall to a sufficient height.’ Cp. ὅτι τειχίζεταί 
τε καὶ ἤδη ὕψος λαμβάνει, i. 91 init. 


οἱ δὲ ἀκούοντες τῷ μὲν Θεμιστοκλεῖ ἐπείθοντο διὰ φιλίαν αὐτοῦ" τῶν δὲ 
ἄλλων ἀφικνουμένων καὶ σαφῶς κατηγορούντων, ὅτι τειχίζεταί τε καὶ ἤδη 
ὕψος λαμβάνει, οὐκ εἶχον, ὅπως χρὴ ἀπιστῆσαι. 

τῶν δὲ ἄλλων, 1) when the others (i.e. every one who came from 
Athens except Themistocles) came declaring, etc. 

Or 2) giving an emphatic meaning to καί, which may be taken 
either with σαφῶς or κατηγορούντων, ‘but when the others who came 
quite plainly told them,’ or ‘further plainly told them.’ 


δοκεῖν οὖν σφίσι καὶ viv ἄμεινον εἶναι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν τεῖχος ἔχειν, καὶ 
ἰδίᾳ τοῖς πολίταις καὶ ἐς τοὺς πάντας ξυμμάχους ὠφελιμώτερον ἔσεσθαι. 

1)* ‘It would be better for the Athenians themselves, and better 
for all the allies, that Athens should have walls.’ 

Or 2) ‘It would be better for the citizens in their own interest 
(i.e. safer for the city) and better for the citizens in their relation to 
the allies (i.e. having regard to their influence in the confederacy) 
that Athens should have walls.’ So, nearly, Classen. 


ἔπεισε δὲ καὶ τοῦ Πειραιῶς τὰ λοιπὰ ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς οἰκοδομεῖν (ὑπῆρκτο 
δ᾽ αὐτοῦ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκείνου ἀρχῆς ἧς κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ᾿Αθηναίοις ἦρξε), 


NOTES, BOOK I. 65 


νομίζων τό Te χωρίον καλὸν εἶναι, λιμένας ἔχον τρεῖς αὐτοφνεῖς, καὶ αὐτοὺς 98. 3. 
ναυτικοὺς γεγενημένους μέγα προφέρειν ἐς τὸ κτήσασθαι δύναμιν. 

ὑπῆρκτο δ' avrov. The verb is used impersonally, ‘a beginning 
had been made of it.’ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν in meaning qualifies ἀρχῆς, ‘the 
yearly office of archon which he held.’ 

1)" αὐτοὺς ναυτικοὺς γεγενημένυυς is used as the ‘accusative 
absolute,’ or remote accusative following μέγα προφέρειν ἐς τὸ 
κτήσασθαι δύναμιν. ‘And, the Athenians having become sailors, 
it was greatly conducive to the increase of their power.’ The 
subject of μέγα προφέρειν is an idea to be gathered from the 
previous sentence, ‘the possession of a good harbour.’ 

2) αὐτούς has been taken as the direct object of προφέρειν, τὸ 
χωρίον being the subject, and προφέρειν meaning ‘to advance,’ or 
‘promote.’ But this active use of προφέρειν is rare. 

3) The words αὐτοὺς ναυτικοὺς γεγενημένους have also been made 
the subject to προφέρειν, ‘their having become a naval power was 
greatly conducive, etc.’ 

4) αὐτούς may be the subject of προφέρειν, and μέγα προφέρειν may 
mean ‘to have a superiority, or advantage, over others.’ Cp. i. 123 
med. εἰ dpa πλούτῳ τε νῦν καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ ὀλίγον προφέρετε, ii. 89 init., 
vil. 64 fin., 77 init. This interpretation avoids all grammatical 
irregularity, and gives the opposition between χωρίον and αὐτούς 
which seems to be intended. 


καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν εὐθὺς ξυγκατεσκεύαζε. 93. 4. 
ξυγκατεσκεύαζε, cp. note on ii. 4]. 4. 


καὶ ὠφκοδόμησαν τῇ ἐκείνου γνώμῃ TO πάχος τοῦ τείχους, ὅπερ νῦν ἔτι δῆλόν 98, 5. 
sors περὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ. δύο γὰρ ἅμαξαι ἐναντίαι ἀλλήλαις τοὺς λίθους 
ἐπῆγον. 

Cp. the parody in Ar. Birds, 1126,— 

AD. ὥστ᾽ dy ἐπάνω μὲν Προξενίδης ὁ Κομπαρεὺς 
καὶ Θεογένης ἐναντίω δύ᾽ ἅρματε, 
ἵππων ὑπόντων μέγεθος ὅσυν ὁ δούριος 
ὑπὸ τοῦ πλάτους ἂν παρελασαίτην. 
ΠΕ. Ἡράκλεις. 


καὶ εἷλον τριήρεις Φοινίκων καὶ διέφθειραν τὰς πάσας ἐς διακοσίας. 100. 1. 
VOL. IU. F 


100. 1. 


100. 3. 


101. 2. 


101. 3. 


66 THUCYDIDES. 


If és ras διακοσίας, which has the lesser weight of MS. authority, 
be read, we must translate ‘amounting to 200, which was the 
whole fleet,’ rds referring to ras πάσας. The larger numbers ascribed 
to the Persian fleet by later writers, Ephorus (350), Phanodemus 
(600),—(both referred to in Plutarch, Cimon xii,}—Diodorus xi. 
60, (340) must then be rejected. 


τῶν μὲν Ἐννέα ‘O8ay αὐτοὶ ἐκράτησαν, ds εἶχον ᾿Ηδωνοί, προελθόντες δὲ 
τῆς Θράκης ἐς μεσόγειαν διεφθάρησαν ἐν Δραβήσκῳ τῇ Ἡδωνικῇ ὑπὸ 
τῶν Θρᾳκῶν ξυμπάντων, οἷς πολέμιον ἦν τὸ χωρίον αἱ Ἐννέα ‘OSoi 
κτιζόμενον. 

αὐτοί, in opposition to the Edoni. ξυμπάντων is the reading of 
all the MSS. and is probably correct, though the Edonians alone 
are mentioned by Herod. ix. 75, Pausanias i. 29. 4, Diodorus xi. 70. 
It has been proposed to read ξύμπαντες. But 4) the two accounts 
are not really inconsistent, as the Edonians, being the former pos- 
sessors Of ’Evvéa ‘Odoi, would be chiefly concerned. δ) There is 
nothing surprising in the Thracians having collected and over- 
whelmed the new colony. Nor c) is it likely that the Edonians, a 
single barbarian tribe, could have cut off 10,000 settlers to a man. 
Nor @) does there appear any reason for the sudden change in the 
narrative of Thucydides from the Edonians to the Thracians, if 
only the Edonians are meant. And δ) in iv. 102 med. the destruction 
of the colony is attributed to the Thracians. 

It is true that the reading ξυμπάντων, which is found in all the 
MSS., may be supposed to have arisen from ὁμοιοτέλευτον. But 
the change to ξύμπαντες is unnecessary. 


πλεῖστοι δὲ τῶν Εἱλώτων ἐγένοντο of τῶν παλαιῶν Μεσσηνίων τότε 
δουλωθέντων ἀπόγονοι 7 καὶ Μεσσήνιοι ἐκλήθησαν οἱ πάντες. 

πλεῖστοι iS, Strictly speaking, the predicate: τότε, at the time when 
they were conquered, implied in τῶν παλαιῶν Μεσσηνίων. Cp. note 
On vill. 62. 3. 


Θάσιοι δὲ τρίτῳ ἔτει πολιορκούμενοι ὡμολόγησαν ᾿Αθηναίοις τεῖχός τε 
καθελόντες, καὶ ναῦς παραδόντες, χρήματά τε ὅσα ἔδει ἀποδοῦναι αὐτίκα 
ταξάμενοι καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν φέρειν, τήν τε ἤπειρον καὶ τὸ μέταλλον ἀφέντες. 


NOTES, BOOK I. 67 


The actions indicated by the aorist participles are not prior in 101. 3. 
time to that indicated in the main verb: cp. i. 108 fin., 117 fin., 
and note on iv. 112. 2. 


μάλιστα 8 αὐτοὺς ἐπεκαλέσαντο ὅτι τειχομαχεῖν ἐδόκουν δυνατοὶ εἶναι, 102. 2. 
τοῖς δὲ πολιορκίας μακρᾶς καθεστηκυίας: τούτου ἐνδεᾶ ἐφαίνετο: βίᾳ γὰρ 

ἂν εἷλον τὸ χωρίον. 

τούτου ἐνδεᾶ ἐφαίνετο. It has been doubted whether the deficiency 
spoken of is that of the Lacedaemonians or the Athenians, whether 
Thucydides means to say 1)* that the Lacedaemonians called in 
the Athenians because ‘their want of skill in siege operations,’ (or, 
taking ἐνδεᾶ in a different sense, ‘their need of the skill for which 
the Athenians were famed’), ‘was proved by the time during 
which the siege had lasted,’ τοῖς δὲ πολιορκίας μακρᾶς καθεστηκυίας : OF, 
2) that the Athenians showed themselves less skilful in siege- 
works than the Lacedaemonians expected, ‘which was proved by 
the further protraction of the siege.’ 

In the first case μακρᾶς καθεστηκυίας refers to the length of the 
siege before the Athenians came, in the second to its continuance 
afterwards. 

The reading τοῖς δέ has the majority of MSS. in its favour. 

Cp. with the whole passage, Aristoph. Lysistr. 1137-1147, 

els’, ὦ Λάκωνες, πρὸς yap ὑμᾶς τρέψομαι, 

οὐκ ἴσθ᾽, ὅτ᾽ ἔλθὼν δεῦρο Περικλείδας ποτε 

ὁ Λάκων ᾿Αθηναίων ἱκετὴς καθέζετο 

ἐπὶ τοῖσι βωμοῖς ὠχρὸς ἐν φοινικίδι, 

στρατιὰν προσαιτῶν ; ἡ δὲ Μεσσήνη rdre 

ὑμῖν ἐπεκεῖτο, χὡ θεὸς σείων ἅμα. 

ἐλθὼν δὲ σὺν ὁπλίταισι τετρακισχιλίοις 

Κίμων ὅλην ἔσωσε τὴν Λακεδαίμονα. 

ταυτὶ παθόντες τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ὕπο 

dnovre χώραν, ἧς ὕπ᾽ εὖ πεπόνθατε; 
where however the comic poet has taken considerable liberties with 
the facts. 


οἱ δὲ ἐν ᾿Ιθώμῃ δεκάτῳ ἔτει, ὡς οὐκέτι ἐδύναντο ἀντέχειν, ξυνέβησαν 1038. 1. 
πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους x.7.). 


108. 1. 


68 THUCYDIDES. 


Kriiger (Historisch Philologische Studien, i. p. 156) would read 
τετάρτῳ, not δεκάτῳ, ἔτει. His chief grounds are as follows : 

a) If δεκάτῳ be read, Thucydides must be supposed to anticipate 
the course of events by several years in order to complete the 
narrative of the siege of Ithomé, and then to resume the thread, in 
the account of the Megarian alliance, at the point where it had 
been broken off (προσεχώρησαν δὲ καὶ Μεγαρῆς ᾿Αθηναίοις és ξυμμαχίαν, 
Λακεδαιμονίων ἀποστάντες κιτ.λ.), Without any hint of the interruption. 
Whereas in the words immediately preceding he has already sus- 
pended the narrative of the siege (i. 102 fin.) (We may also 
compare 101 med.) 

The Megarian alliance clearly belongs (προσεχώρησαν δὲ καὶ 
Μεγαρῆς «.r.A.) to the same period as the Argive alliance of Athens. 
And neither can have taken place ten years after the outbreak 
of the third Messenian War; for then room would not be left for 
the events spoken of by Thucydides as intervening between them 
and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. (Cp. i. 104 init., 
110 init., 112 init. 114 med., 115 init.; ii. 2 init: 6+3 + 5 
+ 14 = 28 years, and there are besides a few intervals of uncertain 
duration. Cp. Kriiger, i. p. 165.) Hence the dismissal of the 
Athenians from Ithomé cannot have taken place later than 459. 

6) The expression used by Thucydides about the settlement of 
the Messenians at Naupactus, καὶ αὐτοὺς ᾿Αθηναῖοι δεξάμενοι kat’ ἔχθος 
ἤδη τὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐς Ναύπακτον κατῴκισαν seems to imply that the 
measure was adopted at an early stage of their enmity, not after 
several years had intervened, and several battles had been fought 
between them. ᾿ 

c) Pausanias, who seems to follow Thucydides in other respects, 
says nothing about the war lasting ten years, but in iv. 24. 3 
connects closely the settlement of the Messenians in Naupactus 
by the Athenians with the Argive alliance, describing both as 
consequences of the quarrel with Sparta. ᾿Αθηναῖοι δέ, τὴν ἐς 
αὐτοὺς τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὑπόνοιαν συνέντες, ᾿Αργείοις τε φίλοι δὶ αὐτὸ 
ἐγένοντο, καὶ Μεσσηνίων τοῖς ἐν ᾿Ιθώμῃ πολιορκουμένοις ἐκπεσοῦσιν ὑπο- 
σπόνδοις ἔδοσαν Ναύπακτον. 

d) Diodorus, it is true, xi. 64 fin., supposes the third Messenian 
War to have lasted ten years. But his authority is of little value, 


NOTES, BOOK Δ 69 


for he is inconsistent with himself; he makes it begin in ΟἹ. 77. 4, 108. 1. 
and end in Ol. 81. 1 (xi. 63 init., 64 init., 84 init. and fin.) 

6) It is unlikely, @ frior1, that the revolted Helots could have 
defended Ithomé for ten years; and 

J) That the Lacedaemonians, while still engaged in the siege, 
could send out, to protect Doris, the large army which fought at 
Tanagra; fifteen hundred men of their own, and ten thousand of 
their allies, Thuc. i. 107. Cp. i. 118 med., where it is said of their 
slowness in resisting the growth of the Athenian power, ἡσύχαζόν 
τε τὸ πλέον τοῦ χρόνου, ὄντες μὲν καὶ mpd τοῦ μὴ ταχεῖς ἱέναι εἰς τοὺς 
πολέμους εἰ μὴ ἀναγκάζοιντο, τὸ δέ τι καὶ πολέμοις οἰκείοις ἐξειργόμενοι. 

The origin of the idea that the siege of Ithome lasted ten years, 
Kriiger finds a) in the desire to connect the fall of Ithomé and 
the settlement of the Messenians at Naupactus, with the expedition 
of Tolmides (cp. Thuc. i. 108 fin.), as is done by Diodorus (xi. 
84 fin.), 5) in a probable confusion with the siege of Ira in the 
second Messenian War. It may be added that ten years was the 
time likely to be assigned by tradition to a siege (cp. note oni. 57. 6. 
ὃ 4), so that the miswriting δεκάτῳ for τετάρτῳ, if it once occurred, 
would readily be adopted. . 

The change of δεκάτῳ into τεγάρτῳ is not much more serious 
than that of δέκα into τέτταρες in i. 57. 6. For the ordinal numbers 
are represented in MSS. either by a single letter with a line over 
it like the cardinals ; or by a letter with the appropriate termination 
-os, -p, etc., (sometimes in an abbreviated form) written over it. 
(See Bast, Commentatio Palaeographica, in Schafer’s Gregorius 
de Dialectis, vol. ii. p. 850.) 


But it must be admitted, on the other hand, that the reading 
δεκάτῳ ἔτει, which is now found in all the MSS., is confirmed by the 
authority of Diodorus. Cp. note on i. 57. 6. ὃ 1. 

The precise chronology of this part of the history is very un- 
certain. Thucydides censures Hellanicus for his inaccuracy in this 
respect (i. 97 fin.), but he was not precisely informed himself. Else 
why, instead of recounting the years accurately, does he omit to 
specify the duration of several intervals of time? (e.g. those between 
the fali of Eion and the battle of the Eurymedon, the battle of 


103. 1. 


70 THUCYDIDES. 


Coronea and the revolt of Euboea; cp. especially i. 98, 100, 
105, 113, 114.) 

This consideration might lead us to infer, in defence of the 
reading δεκάτῳ ἔτει, that the siege of Ithomé began some five or six 
years earlier than is generally supposed. But the beginning of the 
siege is subsequent to the revolt of Thasos and to the second 
colonization of Ennea Hodoi or Amphipolis (i. 100, 101), which 
second colonization is placed by Thucydides (iv. 102 init.) 
twenty-eight or twenty-nine years (‘in the twenty-ninth year’) 
before the third. And the probable date of the third, given by 
Diodorus xii. 32, and the Scholiast on Aeschines (ii.) De F. L.§ 34, 
Reiske, vol. iii. pp. 754, 755, is the archonship of Euthymenes, 437. 
Hence the second cannot be placed earlier than 466 or 465. 

And even if we give up the date 437 for the third colonization of 
Amphipolis, we cannot antedate the second colonization, which 
precedes the siege of Ithomé, by so much as five or six years. 
For the second colonization of Amphipolis is thirty-two years 
after the first. (Thuc. iv. 102 init.) And the first, when the new 
city was founded by Aristagoras, flying from Miletus, must have 
occurred after the outbreak of the Ionian revolt. But the dates 
given by Herodotus fix the Ionian revolt in 499. Thus we 
shall be driven back for the foundation of Amphipolis to a date 
three or four years prior to the beginning of the revolt. 

The conclusion at which we arrive is that the fall of Ithomé 
cannot be placed either earlier or later than the received date. If 
therefore the reading of the MSS. is to be retained, we must 
suppose that Thucydides has anticipated the order of events by six 
years for the sake of concluding the narrative at once. 


The inscription recording the names of the men of the tribe 
Erechtheis who fell in battle in one year about this time was dis- 
covered in the seventeenth century,— 

᾿Ερεχθηΐδος. 
οἷδε ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἐν Κύπρῳ, ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, 
ἐν Φοινίκη, ἐν ᾿Αλιεῦσιν, ἐν Αἰγίνῃ, Meyapoli] τοῦ 
αὐτοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ. 


R ** J. G. vol. i. no. 165. 


NOTES, BOOK I. 71 


ὡμολόγησαν δὲ καὶ Αἰγινῆται μετὰ ταῦτα τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τείχη τε 108. 4. 
περιελόντες, καὶ ναῦς παραδόντες, φόρον τε ταξάμενοι ἐς τὸν ἔπειτα 
χρόνον. 


For the use of the aorist cp. note on i. 101. 3. 


kai pera τοῦτο ol Πελοποννήσιοι τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς és ᾿Ελευσῖνα καὶ Θριῶζε 114, 2. 
ἐσβαλόντες ἐδήωσαν, Πλειστοάνακτος τοῦ Παυσανίου βασιλέως Λακεδαι- 
μονίων ἡγουμένον, καὶ τὸ πλέον οὐκέτι προελθύντες ἀπεχώρησαν ἐπ᾽ οἴκου. 

Θριῶζε, cp. Steph. Byz. Θρία, δῆμος τῆς Οἰνηΐδος φυλῆς" λέγεται καὶ 
Opie. 

We may observe that Thucydides does not here mention, prob- 
ably because it was more immediately connected with the later 
history, the reason why Pleistoanax was believed to have with- 
drawn from Athens. Cp. ii. 21 init., v. 16 fin. 


ἀποδόντες Νίσαιαν, καὶ Πηγὰς καὶ Τροιζῆνα καὶ ᾿Αχαΐαν. 115. 1. 

Respecting Achaia cp. above i. 111 fin., where the Athenians 
are described as taking with them Achaean troops against Oeniadae, 
iv. 21 fin., where the Athenians demand that Achaea, together with 
the other places given up by them at the peace of Euboea, shall 
be restored. In both these passages, as well as the present, it is 
implied that Achaea had become part of the Athenian empire, 
though the fact is nowhere expressly mentioned. 

Cp. also ii. 9 init. Λακεδαιμονίων μὲν οἵδε ξύμμαχοι, Πελοποννήσιοι 
μὲν οἱ ἐντὸς ᾿Ισθμοῦ mayres, πλὴν ᾿Αργείων καὶ ᾿Αχαιῶν (τούτοις δ᾽ ἐς 
ἀμφοτέρους φιλία ἦν' Πελληνῆς δὲ ᾿Αχαιῶν μόνοι ξυνεπολέμουν τὸ πρῶτον, 
ἔπειτα δὲ ὕστερον καὶ ἅπαντες) where the Achaeans are described as 
being neutral at the commencement of the war; v. 52 fin., where 
Alcibiades is actively engaged in Achaia in promoting the Athenian 
interests ; and v. 82 init. τοῦ δ᾽ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους. . . Λακεδαιμόνιοι 
τὰ ἐν ᾿Αχαΐᾳ οὐκ ἐπιτηδείως πρότερον ἔχοντα καθίσταντο, which shows 
that Achaia was not completely under Spartan control before. 


ἐσαγγελθέντων ὅτι Φοίνισσαι νῆες ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς πλέουσιν. 116. 5. 
ἐπ᾿ αὑτούς is either 1) ‘to relieve the Samians,’ or 2) ‘to attack 
the Athenians.’ 


καὶ ναυμαχοῦντες τὰς ἀνταναγομένας ἐνίκησαν. 117. 1. 
For this use of the present, which need not necessarily imply 


117. 1. 


117. 3. 


118. 2. 


120. 1. 


120. 2. 


72 THUCYDIDES. 


‘which were putting out to meet them,’ see note on viii. 14. 2. 
More simply ‘ which came out to meet them.’ 


προσεχώρησαν ὁμολογίᾳ τεῖχός τε καθελόντες, καὶ ὁμήρους Sdvres, 
καὶ ναῦς παραδόντες, καὶ χρήματα τὰ ἀναλωθέντα κατὰ χρόνους ταξάμενοι 


ἀποδοῦναι. 


Cp. note on i. 101. 3. 


of δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι αἰσθόμενοι οὔτε ἐκώλυον, εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ βραχύ, ἡσύχαζόν 
τε τὸ πλέον τοῦ χρόνου, ὄντες μὲν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ μὴ ταχεῖς ἰέναι ἐς τοὺς 
πολέμους, εἰ μὴ ἀναγκάζοιντο, τὸ δέ τι καὶ πολέμοις οἰκείοις ἐξειργόμενοι, 
πρὶν δὴ ἡ δύναμις τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων σαφῶς ἤρετο καὶ τῆς ξυμμαχίας αὐτῶν 


ἥπτοντο. 

μὴ ταχεῖς. This use οὗ μή may be explained ‘as describing an 
individual undera general aspect,’ (see Prof. Campbell, vol. i. Essay 
on Language of Sophocles, p. 48. 2, especially 2 4), or as adding a 
shade of indefiniteness or subjectivity. ‘Who were not of the sort 
to be prompt,’ or ‘who are not to be supposed to have been 
prompt in taking up arms.’ 


Τοὺς μὲν Λακεδαιμονίους, ὦ ἄνδρες ξύμμαχοι, οὐκ ἂν ἔτι αἰτιασαίμεθα, 
ὡς οὐ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐψηφισμένοι τὸν πόλεμόν εἰσι, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐς τοῦτο νῦν 
ξυνήγαγον, χρὴ γὰρ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας τὰ ἴδια ἐξ ἴσου νέμοντας τὰ κοινὰ 
προσκοπεῖν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἐκ πάντων προτιμῶνται. 

τὰ ἴδια, τὰ κοινά, COTrespond to καὶ αὐτοί, καὶ ἡμᾶς, above. 

τὰ ἴδια ἐξ ἴσου νέμοντας is a qualification; ‘the duty of the leaders 
of a confederacy is first to consider the common interest, but they 
are not to neglect their own.’ The moderation of the statement 
adds to its strength. Cp. for a similar qualification iii. 56 fin. 
καίτοι χρὴ .. . τὸ ξυμφέρον μὴ ἄλλο τι νομίσαι ἣ τῶν ξυμμάχων τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς 
ὅταν ἀεὶ βέβαιον τὴν χάριν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔχωσι, καὶ τὸ παραυτίκα που ἡμῖν 
ὠφέλιμον καθιστῆται. 

καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις, ‘in general ;’ i.e. where their privileges and not, as 
here, their duties are concerned. 


τοὺς δὲ τὴν μεσόγειαν μᾶλλον καὶ μὴ ἐν πόρῳ κατῳκημένους εἰδέναι χρή, 
ὅτι, τοῖς κάτω ἣν μὴ ἀμύνωσι, χαλεπωτέραν ἔξονσε τὴν κατακομιδὴν τῶν 


ὡραίων καὶ πάλιν ἀντίληψιν ὧν ἡ θάλασσα τῇ ἡπείρῳφ δίδωσι, καὶ τῶν 


NOTES, BOOK I. 73 


νῦν λεγομένων ph κακοὺς κριτὰς ὡς μὴ προσηκόντων εἶναι, προσδέχεσθαι 120. 2. 
δέ ποτε, εἰ τὰ κάτω πρόοιντο, κἂν μέχρι σφῶν τὸ δεινὸν προελθεῖν, καὶ 
περὶ αὑτῶν οὐχ ἧσσον νῦν βουλεύεσθαι. 

βουλεύεσθαι may be taken 1) as depending on χρή, and parallel 
to μὴ κακοὺς κριτὰς εἶναι, προσδέχεσθαι : or better, 2) as depending 
On some more general idea, such as νομίζειν, supplied from 
προσδέχεσθαι. Cp. note on i. 70. 2; 84. 3; vi. 12. 1. 


ἀνδρῶν yap σωφρόνων μέν ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ἀδικοῖντο, ἡσυχάζειν, ἀγαθῶν 120. 3. 
δὲ ἀδικουμένους ἐκ μὲν εἰρήνης πολεμεῖν, εὖ δὲ παρασχὸν ἐκ πολέμου πάλιν 
ξυμβῆναι. 

The optative emphasizes the hypothetical character of the clause, 
and is here used to express the alternative which is more remote 
or unlikely in the present case, ‘supposing they are not wronged,’ 
as you are. 

Compare i. 121 med. εἰ δ᾽ ἀντίσχοιεν, μελετήσομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν 
πλέονι χρόνῳ τὰ ναυτικά, ‘and if, which is improbable, they should 
hold out;’ ii. 39 4, and note, xairoe εἰ ῥᾳθυμίᾳ μᾶλλον ἣ πόνων μελέτῃ, 
καὶ μὴ μετὰ νόμων τὸ πλεῖον ἣ τρόπων ἀνδρίας ἐθέλοιμεν κινδυνεύειν, περι- 
γίγνεται ἡμῖν τοῖς τε μέλλουσιν ἀλγεινοῖς μὴ προκάμνειν κιτιλὰ., where the 
optative modestly expresses as a possibility what is really the fact, 
not ‘if we prefer to meet danger,’ but ‘if it be the case that we 
prefer to meet danger;’ iii. 9 med. καὶ οὐκ ἄδικος αὕτη ἡ ἀξίωσίς ἐστιν, 
ei τύχοιεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἵ τε ἀφιστάμενοι καὶ ad’ ὧν διακρίνοιντο ἴσοι 
μὲν τῇ γμώμῃ ὄντες καὶ εὐνοίᾳ κιτὰλ., ‘if they really stand in a certain 
relation to each other, which we.and the Athenians do not.’ 


ἐνθυμεῖται γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὁμοῖα τῇ πίστει καὶ ἔργῳ ἐπεξέρχεται, ἀλλὰ μετὰ 120. 5. 
ἀσφαλείας μὲν δοξάζομεν, μετὰ δέους δὲ ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ ἔλλείπομεν. ἡμεῖς 121. 1. 
δὲ νῦν καὶ ἀδικούμενοι τὸν πόλεμον ἐγείρομεν καὶ ἱκανὰ ἔχοντες ἐγκλήματα, 
καὶ ὅταν ἀμυνώμεθα ᾿Αθηναίους, καταθησόμεθα αὐτὸν ἐν καιρῷ. 

ὁμοῖα, thé reading of all the MSS., has been altered into ὁμοίᾳ, 
in order to justify the article which follows. But the occurrence 
of the article in one member of the sentence and not in the 
other is sufficiently justified by the idiomatic use of ἔργῳ 
without the article. Or it may be said that the opposition is 
not between ἔργῳ and τῇ πίστει, but between ἔργῳ ἐπεξέρχεται and 


121. 3. 


122. 1. 


74 THUCYDIDES. 


. ἐνθυμεῖται τῇ πίστει. In other words, τῇ πίστει and épyp are closely 


connected with their respective verbs rather than opposed to each 
other. 

ἡμεῖς δὲ νῦν κτλ. ‘But we are not open to these charges of 
imprudence and over-confidence: for we only go to war because 
we are injured, and we shall not protract the war when the occa- 
sion for it has ceased.’ The Corinthians, having dwelt upon the 
dangers of war, now return to the other side of the question, and 
try to work upon the constitutional indolence of the Spartans by 
two motives, a) the provocation offered by the Athenians, 4) the 
prospect of a speedy settlement. 


δάνεισμα yap ποιησάμενοι ὑπολαβεῖν οἷοί τὲ ἐσμὲν μισθῷ μείζονε τοὺς 
ξένους αὐτῶν ναυβάτας. ὠνητὴ γὰρ ᾿Αθηναίων ἡ δύναμις μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκεία. 
ἡ δὲ ἡμετέρα ἧσσον ἂν τοῦτο πάθοι, τοῖς σώμασι τὸ πλέον ἰσχύουσα ἣ 
τοῖς χρήμασι. 

τοῦτο, the liability to be bought by higher pay; referring back to 
ὑπολαβεῖν οἷοί τ᾽ ἐσμὲν μισθῷ μείζονι τοὺς ξένους αὑτῶν ναυβάτας, not to 
ὠνητή. For ὠνητή refers not to the possibility of the Athenian forces 
being bought by higher pay, but to the fact that they were mer- 
cenary, as appears from the opposition to οἰκεία. 

δύναμις is first concrete (᾿Αθηναίων ἡ δύναμις, forces), and secondly 
abstract (ἡ δὲ ἡμετέρα, power). 

The argument is that the Lacedaemonian soldiers, not having 
been bought by the Lacedaemonian government, which was too 
poor to use mercenaries, could not be bought by their enemies. 


ἐν @ ὁ μὲν εὐοργήτως αὐτῷ προσομιλήσας βεβαιότερος, ὁ δὲ ὀργισθεὶς 
περὶ αὑτὸν οὐκ ἐλάσσω πταίει. 

οὐκ ἐλάσσω πταίει may be taken either 1)* as parallel to βεβαιότερος, 
‘has a worse fall than if he had kept his temper ;’ or 2) as equi- 
valent to ὅμως πταίει, ‘however angry he may be, meets with a 
reverse al] the same;’ or again 3) may be connected with περὶ 
αὑτόν, ‘by his own fault more than by the hand of the enemy ;’ 
compare i. 69 fin. ἐπιστάμενοι καὶ τὸν βάρβαρον αὐτὸν περὶ αὑτῷ τὰ 
πλείω σφαλέντα. περὶ αὐτόν, if read, must be taken with ὀργισθείς, 
‘he who gets into a passion over war ;’ αὐτόν, scil. τὸν πόλεμον. 


NOTES, BOOK I. "oR 


ἐν ᾧ ἣ δικαίως δοκοῖμεν ἂν πάσχειν ἢ διὰ δειλίαν ἀνέχεσθαι καὶ τῶν 122, 3. 
πατέρων χείρους φαίνεσθαι οἱ τὴν "Ελλάδα ἠλευθέρωσαν. 

The form of antithesis in Thucydides often gets the better of the 
meaning. So in this passage ; 1) Two clauses, of which one is 
really emphatic, are represented as mere alternatives. For the 
emphasis is to be placed on δικαίως πάσχειν, not On διὰ δειλίαν 
ἀνέχεσθαι. ‘We shall be thought to deserve our fate, or at any 
rate to submit through cowardice.’ Cp. i. 33 fin. ἢ κακῶσαι ἡμᾶς 
ἢ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς βεβαιώσασθαι. Or 2)* there is an imaginary oppo- 
sition of two seeming alternatives which are really in a different 
relation: ‘We shall be thought to be rightly served; or to be 
too cowardly to resist,’ is another way of saying, ‘it will be 
thought that we are rightly served, because we are too cowardly 
to resist.’ 


καὶ οὐκ ἴσμεν, ὅπως τάδε τριῶν τῶν μεγίστων ξυμφορῶν ἀπήλλακται, afvve- 122, 4. 
σίας ἣ μαλακίας } ἀμελείας. οὗ γὰρ δὴ πεφευγότες ταῦτα ἐπὶ τὴν πλεί- 
στους δὴ βλάψασαν καταφρόνησιν κεχωρήκατε, ἣ ἐκ τοῦ πολλοὺς σφάλλειν 
τὸ ἐναντίον ὄνομα ἀφροσύνη μετωνόμασται. 

Either 1)* the emphasis is on od πεφευγότες ταῦτα, ‘For you have 
not evaded these charges when you have taken refuge in that fatal 
contempt of others, etc.,’ or 2) the clause is ironical, meaning 
“ For we cannot suppose’ (i.e. we strongly suspect) ‘ that you have 
avoided these charges, and fallen into foolish self-conceit,’ (which 
is the only other possible explanation of your conduct.) 


τὰ μὲν οὖν προγεγενημένα τί δεῖ μακρότερον ἣ és ὅσον τοῖς νῦν ξυμ- 133. 1. 
φέρει αἰτιᾶσθαι ; περὶ δὲ τῶν ἔπειτα μελλόντων τοῖς παροῦσι βοηθοῦντας 
χρὴ ἐπιταλαιπωρεῖν. 

ἐπιταλαιπωρεῖν is to be taken with τοῖς παροῦσι, ‘to spend our 
labour upon.’ For the use of περί cp. i. 75 fin. πᾶσι δὲ ἀνεπίφθονον 


τὰ ξυμφέροντα τῶν μεγίστων πέρι κινδύνων εὖ τίθεσθαι. 

σπονδάς τε οὐ λύσετε πρότεροι, ds γε καὶ ὁ θεὸς κελεύων πολεμεῖν 123, 1. 
νομίζει παραβεβάσθαι. 

Cp. note on i. 53. 2. 


ψηφίσασθε τὸν πόλεμον, μὴ φοβηθέντες τὸ αὐτίκα δεινόν, τῆς 8 an 124, 2. 


124. 2. 


126. 2. 


126. 6. 


126. 11. 


76 THUCYDIDES. 


αὐτοῦ διὰ πλείονος εἰρήνης ἐπιθυμήσαντες᾽ ἐκ πολέμου μὲν γὰρ εἰρήνη 
μᾶλλον βεβαιοῦται, ἀφ᾽ ἡσυχίας δὲ μὴ πολεμῆσαι οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκίνδυνον. 

τοῦ διὰ πλείονος, either 1*) ‘the peace of long duration,’ opposed 
to the momentary struggle, or 2) ‘the remoter peace,’ i.e. ‘ the 
peace, although it be more remote,’ opposed to the immediate 
danger. 

οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκίνδυνον, i.e. ‘is not really so safe a course as to go to 
war; or ‘is really more dangerous than to go to war.’ 


καὶ πρῶτον μὲν πρέσβεις πέμψαντες of Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐκέλευον τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους τὸ ἄγος ἐλαύνειν τῆς θεοῦ. 

ἄγος ἐλαύνειν, to drive out the pollution, or curse, which was sup- 
posed to rest on the heads of certain persons. Compare i. 135 
init. of δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὡς καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄγος κρίναντος, ἀντεπέταξαν τοῖς 
Λακεδαιμονίοις ἐλαύνειν αὐτό.ςὡ Hence the only way of expelling the 
curse was by expelling them. Compare i. 139 init. περὶ τῶν ἐναγῶν 
τῆς ἐλάσεως. 


ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις, Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται, Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου 
μεγίστη, ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐν ἣ πανδημεὶ θύουσι, πολλοὶ οὐχ ἱερεῖα ἀλλὰ 
θύματα ἐπιχώρια. 

1) ‘For the Athenians also have a greatest festival of Zeus, namely, 
of Zeus Meilichius, the Diasia as it is called.’ Or 2) altering the 
punctuation, ἔστι yap καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις Διάσια, ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτή x.T.A. 
‘For the Athenians also have a festival of Zeus, namely, the Diasia, 
which is called the greatest festival of Zeus Meilichius.’ 

In neither case is the καί precisely accurate, for, although there 
was both at Athens and at Olympia a festival, and a ‘greatest 
festival,’ of Zeus, there was at Olympia neither a ‘ greatest festival 
of Zeus Meilichius,’ nor a ‘ Diasia.’ 


καθεζομένους δέ τινας καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν Σεμνῶν θεῶν ἐν τοῖς βωμοῖς ἐν τῇ 
παρόδῳ διεχρήσαντο. 

ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ 1*) with καθεζομένους, ‘who had taken their places at 
the altar as they were being led to execution past it.’ The altar 
here spoken of is not that in the Acropolis. Or 2) with διεχρήσαντο, 
‘they slew them in passing the altar as they placed themselves at 


NOTES, BOOK I. 77 


it.” The sense favours 1), the order of the words 2). The 126.11. 
expression ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ, ‘in passing the altar,’ applies better to 

the prisoners, who first ran to the altar, than to their captors 

who followed them thither. 


᾿Αντεκέλενον δὲ καὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους τὸ ἀπὸ Ταινάρου 128. I. 
ἄγος ἐλαύνειν. οἱ γὰρ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἀναστήσαντές ποτε ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ 
Ποσειδῶνος ἀπὸ Ταινάρου τῶν Εἱλώτων ἱκέτας, ἀπαγαγόντες διέφθειραν. 
διὸ δὴ καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς νομίζουσι τὸν μέγαν σεισμὸν γενέσθαι ἐν Σπάρτῃ. 

4) τὸ ἀπὸ Ταινάρου, ‘arising out of the affair οὗ Taenarus.’ 6) ἀπὸ 
Ταινάρου, merely in the local sense, with ἀναστήσαντες, ‘ raising them 
up and taking them from Taenarus.’ 

Cp. Ar. Ach. 509,— 

ἐγὼ δὲ μισῶ μὲν Λακεδαιμονίους σφόδρα, 
καὐτοῖς ὁ Ποσειδῶν, οὑπὶ Ταινάρῳ θεός, 
σείσας ἁπᾶσιν ἐμβάλοι τὰς οἰκίας. 


Cp. also note on i. 102. 2. 


καὶ παρὰ Παυσανίαν és Βυζάντιον ἐπιστολὴν ἀντεπετίθει αὐτῷ ὡς τά- 1239, 1. 
χιστα διαπέμψαι καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ἀποδεῖξαι καὶ ἦν τι αὐτῷ Παυσανίας 
παραγγέλλῃ περὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ πραγμάτων, πράσσειν ὡς ἄριστα καὶ πισ- 
τότατα. 

The words διαπέμψαι here, and διέπεμψεν just below, indicate that 
the satrap sent and did not take the letter to Pausanias. But how 
in that case could he show him the seal? The word ἀποδεῖξαι must 
be taken in a less strict sense, not ‘ show him the seal,’ but ‘draw 
his attention to it,’ or ‘tell the messenger to show it him.’ That 
the satrap himself could not have gone to Byzantium is evident, for 
it was now in the hands of the Athenians. 

σφραγίς is the royal seal attached to the letter. Compare Xen. 
Hell. i. 4. 3, ἐπιστολήν τε ἔφερε τοῖς κάτω πᾶσι τὸ βασίλειον σφράγισμα 
ἔχουσαν, ἐν 7 ἐνὴν καὶ τάδε : vii. 1. 39, ὡς δὲ οἱ Θηβαῖοι ἐκάλεσαν ἀπὸ 
τῶν πόλεων ἁπασῶν ἀκουσομένους τῆς παρὰ βασιλέως ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ ὁ 
Πέρσης, ὁ φέρων τὰ γράμματα, δείξας τὴν βασιλέως σφραγῖδα, ἀνέγνω τὰ 
γεγραμμένα κιτὰλ. 


τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐλεγεῖον οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐξεκόλαψαν εὐθὺς τύτε ἀπὸ τοῦ 132. 3. 


132. 3. 


"8 THUCYDIDES. 


tpiwoos τοῦτο, καὶ ἐπέγραψα ν ὀνομαστὶ ras πόλεις, ὅσαι ξυγεαθελοῦσαι 
τὸν βάρβαρον ἔστησαν τὸ ἀνάθημα' τοῦ μέντοι Παυσανίον ἀδίκημα καὶ 
τοῦτο ἐδόκει εἶναι, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐν τούτῳ καθειστήκει, πολλῷ μᾶλλον παρό- 
μοιον πραχθῆναι ἐφαίνετο τῇ παρούσῃ διανοίᾳ. 

μέντοι. This act of Pausanias, though the Lacedaemonians 
obliterated the inscription at the time, still gave offence :——ea:— 
xai— : it appeared wrong in itself, and also received a still darker 
colour when interpreted by his subsequent conduct. Observe rotre 
referring to the first offence, ἐν τούτῳ to the subsequent treason 
of Pausanias. 

The correction τότε, for τοῦτο, is unnecessary. For τοῦτο means 
‘the offence as it was regarded at the time,’ cp. note on li. 15. 5. 
But πολλῷ μᾶλλον is slightly inaccurate. For the correspondence 
between his past offence and his present designs would not be 
observed at all before the latter came to light. 

The same tripod is mentioned by Herod. ix. 81, δεκάτην ἐξελόντες 
τῷ ἐν Δελφοῖσι θεῷ, an’ ἧς ὁ τρίπους ὁ χρύσεος ἀνετέθη, 6 ἐπὶ τοῦ 
τρικαρήνου ὄφιος τοῦ χαλκέου ἐπεστεὼς ἄγχιστα τοῦ βωμοῦ. A bronze 
serpent, believed to be identical with this, still stands in the 
Hippodrome at Constantinople. See an article by Dr. Frick 
in the Archaologischer Anzeiger, June, 1856, No. go; Stein, 
I{erodotus, ad loc.; Rawlinson, Herodotus, ad loc. and Appendix. 

Upon the serpent is inscribed a list of Greek states nearly 
identical with that recorded by Pausanias, v. 23. 1, to have been 
inscribed upon the votive statue of Zeus at Olympia after the 
Persian wars. It should be observed that Thucydides speaks 
of the inscription as being on the tripod, while Herodotus dis- 
tinguishes the tripod from the serpent on which it stood. Never- 
theless the evidence (for which see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 
ch. xvii) seems satisfactorily to establish the identity of the monu- 
ment now at Constantinople with that mentioned by Herodotus 
and Thucydides. 


188. τότε δὲ οἱ ἔφοροι, δείξαντος αὐτοῦ τὰ γράμματα, μᾶλλον μὲν ἐπίστευσαν, 


δὲ βευληθέντες ἔτι γενέσθαι αἰτοῦ Παυσανίου τι λέγοντος, ἀπὸ 
fe τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ Ταίναρον ἱκέτου οἰχομένου καὶ σκηνησαμένου 
ἐψέγραετι καλύβην͵ ἐς ἣν τῶν τε ἐφόρων ἐντός τινας ἔκρυψε, 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 79 


καὶ Παυσανίου ὡς αὐτὸν ἐλθόντος καὶ ἐρωτῶντος τὴν πρόφασιν τῆς ἱκετείας, 183. 
ὥσθοντο πάντα σαφῶς. 

τέ before ἐφόρων 1) is connected with the καί which follows by 
sound (see note on i, 9. 3. ὃ 3) and by association of ideas. The 
presence of the ephors and of Pausanias in the same hut are 
naturally brought into relation. But there is no grammatical 
connection between τέ and καί, for καί joins the participles ἐλθόντος, 
ἐρωτῶντος with οἰχομένου, σκηνησαμένου. 

2) There may be an anacoluthon, τέ and καί connecting a par- 
ticiple with a finite verb, as though the second clause had run 
καὶ Παυσανίας ἦλθε. 

3) τέ, καί, may join ἔκρυψε and ἥσθοντο, and the relative character 
of the clause ἐς ἥν «.r.A. may be forgotten in the length of the 
sentence, which is thus left incomplete. 

According to 3) either ἐν 9 is latent in és ἥν, or ἐς qv is dropped 
out of sight in the clause καὶ Παυσανίον ὡς αὐτὰν ἔλθόντος κτλ. For 
a similar irregularity cp. note on i. 78. 2. | 


αἰτιωμένου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τά τε περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα καὶ τἄλλα ἀπο- 188. 
φαίνοντος καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὡς οὐδὲν πώποτε αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς βασιλέα 
διακηγίαις παραβάλοιτο, προτιμηθείη δ᾽ ἐν ἴσῳ τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν διακόνων 
ἀποθανεῖν. 

Either 1) the other messengers were to have death, and he with 
them, as the reward of their special services; mportpnOein ΞΞ ἀξιωθείη. 

Or 2) προτιμηθεΐη ἐν ἴσῳ is an ironical oxymoron. -‘ His prefer- 
ment was to be treated like the rest and put to death,’ i.e. οὐδὲν 
“τροτιμηθείη τῶν ἄλλων ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἴσῳ ἀξιωθείη. 


καὶ αὐτὸν ἐμέλλησαν μὲν ἐς τὸν Καιάδαν, οὗπερ τοὺς κακούργους, ἐμβάλλειν 184. 4. 
ἔπειτα ἔδοξε πλησίον που κατορύξαι. ὁ δὲ θεὸς ὁ ἐν Δελφοῖς τόν τε τάφον 
ὕστερον ἔχρησε τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις μετενεγκεῖν οὗπερ ἀπέθανε K.T.A. 

κακούργους, 501]. εἰώθεσαν, understood from ἐμέλλησαν, an explana- 
tion which has passed into the text in the majority of MSS. 

πλησίον που, either near the Caeadas ; or near the place where he 
. died, the God afterwards ordering him to be buried on the exact spot. 


ἐδήλου δὲ ἡ γραφή, ὅτι ‘ Θεμιστοκλῆς ἥκω παρὰ σέ, ὃς κακὰ μὲν πλεῖστα 137. 4. 
Ἑλλήνων εἴργασμαι τὸν ὑμέτερον οἶκον, ὅσον χρόνον τὸν σὸν πατέρα 


197. 4. 


8ο THUCYDIDES. 


ἐπιόντα ἐμοὶ ἀνάγκῃ ἠμυνόμην, πολὺ δ᾽ ἔτι πλείω ἀγαθά, ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ 
ἀσφαλεῖ μὲν ἐμοί, ἐκείνῳ δὲ ἐν ἐπικινδύνω πάλιν ἡ ἀποκομιδὴ ἐγίγνετο. 
καί μοι εὐεργεσία ὀφείλεται, (γράψας τὴν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τῆς 
ἀναχωρήσεως καὶ τὴν τῶν γεφυρῶν, ἣν ψευδῶς προσεποιήσατο, τότε δὲ 
αὑτὸν οὐ διάλυσιν,) κιτιλ. 

The motive of Themistocles was to bring on the batde in the 
straits, which in fact led to the defeat of Xerxes. But it is not 
surprising that after the event he should attempt to give a new 
interpretation to this astute move, though we can hardly suppose 
that such a double policy was intended at the time. We need not 
assume that Xerxes had his eyes opened by the defeat to the real 
character of the proceeding. 

At any rate, we are informed, in Herod. viii. 110, that after the 
battle —Themistocles did actually send a second message to the 
King by the same messenger, as if his treachery were unsuspected, 
informing him that he might retreat at leisure, for the bridges were 
not to be broken down. And according to Herodotus, viii. 109 
fin., he really intended on this second occasion to make himself 
a friend of the King and secure himself against the consequences 
of a Greck reverse. But it must be observed that the pretended 
obligation was not claimed until fourteen or fifteen years after- 
wards. 

It has been supposed that the words here, τὴν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος mpody- 
γελσιν τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως, refer to the second message. But a) the 
words in which Thucydides elsewhere speaks of Themistocles, 
(és αἰτιώτατος ἐν τῷ στενῷ ναυμαχῆσαι ἐγένετο, ὅπερ σαφέστατα ἔσωσε τὰ 
πράγματα, i. 74 init.) make it probable that he is referring not to 
the second but to the first message. ὁ) The second, according to 
Herodotus, was sent from Andros, not from Salamis. And ¢) 
τὴν προάγγελσιν τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως WOuld mean ‘the warning to retreat,’ 
not the information that Xerxes might retreat at leisure. 

Here, however, a dilficulty arises, Themistocles was ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ, 
and Xerxes was rctreating and ἐν ἐπικινδύνῳ, when the second mes- 
sage was sent, but this would be untrue of the first. If Thucydides 
has not confused two occasions, there is a slip of language, and 
the words ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ μὲν ἐμοί x.r.A. apply only to the second of the 
two clauses which follow, καὶ τὴν τῶν γεφυρῶν x.7.X. 


NOTES, BOOK I. δὲ 


ἣν ψευδῶς προσεποιήσατο. It has been objected that Themistocles 187. 4. 
dissuaded the Athenians from breaking down the bridges; so that 
these words must mean ‘the credit of which, as a service 10 the 
King, he falsely claimed,’ (Classen, B6hme). But in reality The- 
Mistocles originally proposed that Xerxes should be pursued and. 
the bridges broken down; to Eurybiades who opposed him, and 
who was supported by the other Peloponnesian commanders, really 
belonged the credit which Themistocles is here said to claim. 

He did not change sides until he perceived that he had no chance 
Of carrying his point with the majority; he then began to dis- 
Suade the Athenians, who were still eager to sail to the Hellespont, 
froma the execution of his own proposal. See Herod. viii. 108-110. 


Odeceig γὰρ ξυνέσει καὶ οὔτε προμαθὼν ἐς αὑτὴν οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἐπιμαθὼν 188. 3. 
τῶν» -π-ὦ παραχρῆμα δι᾽ ἐλαχίστης βουλῆς κράτιστος γνώμων, καὶ τῶν μελλόν- 
τῶν «ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῦ γενησομένου ἄριστος εἰκαστής. 

* “Without study before and without study after’ the occasion for 
@Ctican had arisen. 


κακὰ ἃ μὲν μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχοι, καὶ ἐξηγήσασθαι οἷός re ὧν δὲ ἄπειρος 188. 3. 
dn, axpivas ἱκανῶς οὐκ ἀπήλλακτο. τό τε ἄμεινον ἢ χεῖρον ἐν τῷ ἀφανεῖ ἔτι 
ΤΡ «ὥρα μάλιστα. 
€ ΞΞ ἡγήσασθαι, either ‘to explain,’ or ‘to conduct to an issue,’ 
a Qssible meaning of the word, but without authority. In either 
ΟΞ ἘΞ the antithesis between ὧν ἄπειρος εἴη and ἃ μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχοι 
(which cannot mean ‘things in which he was practically versed,’ 
PFN.) is somewhat forced. 
TO ἄμεινον ἣ χεῖρον, the prospective advantages or disadvantages of 
4 Biven policy. 
ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπεργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου. 139. 2. 
It is not known with certainty whether the γῆ ἱερά and the γῆ 
ὠόριστος were the same (as the Scholiast here says), or (as the 
repetition of the article would seem to indicate) different pieces of 
ground: and whether ἀόριστος means ‘not included within the boun- 
daries of Attica and Megara,’ or ‘ not marked out by boundaries 
as the property of private persons.’ 
VOL. IL G 


140. 4. 


141. 6. 


142. 3. 


82 THUCYDIDES. 


ὑμῶν δὲ μηδεὶς νομίσῃ περὶ βραχέος ἂν πολεμεῖν εἰ τὸ Μεγαρέων ψήφισμα 
μὴ καθέλοιμεν, ὅπερ μάλιστα προὔχονται, εἰ καθαιρεθϑείη, μὴ ἂν γέγνεσθαι 
τὸν πόλεμον. 

εἰ καθαιρεθείη x.rA. is epexegetical οὗ ὅπερ, ‘ which they put forward 
above all things; namely, this about it, that if it were rescinded, etc.’ 

Compare Aristoph. Peace, 606-611,— 

εἶτα Περικλέης φοβηθεὶς μὴ μετάσχοι τῆς τύχης, 

τὰς φύσεις ὑμῶν δεδοικὼς καὶ τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον, 
πρὶν παθεῖν τι δεινόν, αὐτὸς ἐξέφλεξε τὴν πόλιν, 
ἐμβαλὼν σπινθῆρα μικρὸν Μεγαρικοῦ ψηφίσματος, 
κἀξεφύσησεν τοσοῦτον πόλεμον, ὥστε τῷ καπνῷ 
πάντας Ἕλληνας δακρῦσαι, τούς τ᾽ ἐκεῖ, τούς τ᾽ ἐνθάδε. 

For the sentiments which follow, Poppo, ed. maj. compares what 
Hume, History of England, ch. Ixiv. says of De Witt: ‘It was 
ever his maxim that no independent government should yield to 
another any evident point of reason or equity, and that all such 
concessions, so far from preventing war, served to no other purpose 
than to provoke fresh claims and insolencies.’ 


πολεμεῖν δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὁμοίαν ἀντιπαρασκενὴν ἀδύνατοι, ὅτ᾽ ἂν μήτε βουλευ- 
τηρίῳ ἑνὶ χρώμενοι παραχρῆμά τι ὀξέως ἐπιτελῶσι x.T.A. 

ὅτ᾽ ἄν bears a sense a) of causality, 4) of indefinite time, ‘ seeing 
that they cannot execute anything quickly if ever they want to do 
so.’ Cp. beginning of next ch. μέγιστον δέ, τῇ τῶν χρημάτων σπάνει 
κωλύσονται, ὅτ᾽ ἂν σχολῇ αὐτὰ ποριζόμενοι διαμέλλωσι, and i. 36 init. 
καὶ οὐ τὰ κράτιστα αὐταῖς προνοῶν ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἐς τὸν μέλλοντα καὶ ὅσον οὗ 


παρόντα πόλεμον ἐνδοιάζῃ χωρίον προσλαβεῖν x.7.X. 


καὶ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἡ ἐπιτείχισις, οὐδὲ τὸ ναυτικὸν αὐτῶν ἄξιον φοβηθῆναι. 
τὴν μὲν γὰρ χαλεπὸν καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ πόλιν ἀντίπαλον παρασκενάσασθαι, 
ἧπου δὴ ἐν πολεμίᾳ τε καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον ἐκείνοις ἡμῶν ἀντεπιτετειχισμένων- 
φρούριον δ᾽ εἰ ποιήσονται, τῆς μὲν γῆς βλάπτοιεν ἄν τι μέρος καταδρομαῖς 
καὶ αὐτομολίαις, οὐ μέντοι ἱκανόν γε ἔσται ἐπιτειχίζειν τε κωλύειν ἡμᾶς 
πλεύσαντας ἐς τὴν ἐκείνων, καί, ἧπερ ἰσχύομεν, ταῖς ναυσὶν ἀμύνεσθαι. 

Two kinds of ἐπιτείχισις are referred to: a) the founding of a 
city in the neighbourhood (like Heraclea, iii. 92, 93, Anaea, An- 
tandrus, iv. 52, 75,) intended to control Athens; 4) the raising of 
detached forts, such as Decelea. 


NOTES, BOOK I. : 83 


πόλιν ἀντίπαλον is in loose apposition with τὴν μὲν γάρ. ‘ For the 142. 3. 
first (scil. ἐπιτείχισι»), in the form of a city which could compete 
with us, it would be difficult to establish.’ 

ἀντεπιτετειχισμένων, that is to say, while we already have our city 
which is an ἐπιτείχισις over against their new city if it were possible 
for them to establish it. The word, although describing obscurely 
a fact sufficiently obvious, has a rhetorical force. There is no. 
reason for giving it a future perfect sense, as though Pericles were 
referring to some future city which the Athenians were to raise as 
the rival to Sparta. The Athenians had certainly no idea of found- 
ing a πόλις ἀντίπαλος to Sparta, though they might a φρούριον, as at 
Pylos, and again on the Laconian coast (vii. 26 med.). 

Both Decelea and Pylos (cp. especially the words ἐπιτειχίζειν 
κωλύειν ἡμᾶς xr.) seem to be anticipated in this passage. 


τὸ δὲ ναυτικὸν τέχνης ἐστὶν ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλο τι, καὶ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, ὅταν 142, g. 
τύχῃ, ἐκ παρέργου μελετᾶσθαι, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον μηδὲν ἐκείνῳ πάρεργον ἄλλο 
γίγνεσθαι. 

τέχνης 1)* is a genitive of relation, literally, ‘naval skill in relation 
to art is like anything else in relation to art,’ in other words, naval 
skill is like skill of other kinds. Cp. for examples, Prof. Campbell’s 
Essay on Language of Sophocles, § 9. 3. 

Or 2) ‘naval skill is, like other things,’ i.e. like anything else 
which requires art, ‘a matter of art.’ Cp. vi. 18 fin. καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἂν 
μὲν ἡσυχάζῃ, τρίψεσθαί τε αὐτὴν περὶ αὐτήν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλο τι, καὶ πάντων 
τὴν ἐπιστήμην ἐγγηράσεσθαι. 


νῦν δὲ τόδε τε ὑπάρχει, καί, ὅπερ κράτιστον, κυβερνήτας ἔχομεν πολίτας 143, 1. 
καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν πλείους καὶ ἀμείνους ἢ πᾶσα ἡ ἄλλη Ἕλλάε, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ κινδύνῳ οὐδεὶς ἂν δέξαιτο τῶν ξένων τήν τε αὑτοῦ φεύγειν, καὶ Δ. 
μετὰ τῆς ἥσσονος ἅμα ἐλπίδος ὀλίγων ἡμερῶν ἕνεκα μεγάλου μισθοῦ δόσεως 
ἐκείνοις ξυναγωνίζεσθαι. 

τὴν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν has sometimes been taken to mean ‘ our other 
petty officers.’ Compare vi. 31 med. But the fact would not be 
sufficiently important to be introduced here. 

The argument is a) that the pilots of the fleet are Athenian 
citizens. 4) That the Athenian sailors, whether citizens or not, 

G2 


143. 1. 


84 THUCYDIDES. 


are the best and most numerous in Hellas, and that therefore the 
loss of a few hired sailors will not matter. And 2) that the 
ξένοι themselves will be less likely to desert because of the 
danger of fighting against so superior a force, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ κινδύνῳ 
K.T.A. 

τὴν αὑτοῦ φεύγειν, ‘to lose his home,’ because after enlisting in the 
Spartan service no native of any town under Athenian control would 
be allowed to return to it. 


BOOK II. 


καὶ Αἰνησίου ἐφόρουν ἐν Σπάρτῃ, καὶ Πυθοδώρου ἔτι δύο μῆνας ἄρχοντος 2. I. 
᾿Αθηναίοις, μετὰ τὴν ἐν Ποτιδαίᾳ μάχην μηνὶ ἕκτῳ, καὶ ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ 
κιτιλ, 

It is difficult to fix the date of the attack on Plataea with certainty. 
It took place a) ‘when Pythodorus had two months of his archonship 
to run,’ δ) ‘at the beginning of spring,’ c) about eighty days before 
the first Peloponnesian invasion of Attica, which occurred τοῦ 
θέρους καὶ τοῦ σίτου ἀκμάζοντος, ii, 19 init., d) about the time of the 
new moon (ii. 4 med.). But the first of these data appears to give 
a different result to the second and third. 

a) The archons came into office on the first day of Hecatom- 
baeon, the first month of the Attic year. Hecatombaeon might 
begin as early as the beginning of July (according to others towards 
the end of June), or as late as the beginning of August (according 
to others towards the end of July). The attack on Plataea will thus 
fall at the earliest towards the end of April. 

5) The meaning of ‘at the beginning of spring,’ dua ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ, 
is shown by a comparison of iv. 117 init. Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ καὶ ᾿Αθη- 
γαῖοι ἅμα ἦρι τοῦ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους εὐθὺς ἐκεχειρίαν ἐποιήσαντο 
ἐνιαύσιον With iv. 118 fin. καὶ ὡμολόγησαν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν εἶναι 
ἐνιαυτόν, ἄρχειν δὲ τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν, τετράδα ἐπὶ δέκα τοῦ ᾿Ελαφηβολιῶνος 
μηνός, and v. 19 init. ἄρχει δὲ τῶν σπονδῶν... ἄρχων ᾿Αλκαῖος, Ἐλαφη- 
βολιῶνος μηνὸς ἄκτῃ φθίνοντος with v. 20 init. αὗται αἱ σπονδαὶ ἐγένοντο 
τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἅμα ἦρι. 

The date thus obtained for the attack on Plataea would be the 
middle or end of Elaphebolion, i.e. roughly speaking, some time 
in March, or the beginning of. April. But the consideration men- 
tioned in @) fixes the date within these limits to about March $ or 
April 7, on which days there was a new moon. See Boeckh, 
Mondcyclen der Hellenen, Jahrb. fir Class. Phil. Suppl.i.p. 78. It 


76 THUCYDIDES. 


124. 2. αὐτοῦ διὰ πλείονος εἰρήνης ἐπιθυμήσαντες᾽ ἐκ πολέμου μὲν γὰρ εἰρήαα 

μᾶλλον βεβαιοῦται, ἀφ᾽ ἡσυχίας δὲ μὴ πολεμῆσαι οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκίνδυνον. 

τοῦ διὰ πλείονος, either 1*) ‘the peace of long duration,’ opposec— 
to the momentary struggle, or 2) ‘the remoter peace,’ i.e. ‘ thee 
peace, although it be more remote,’ opposed to the immediate 
danger. 

οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκίνδυνον, i.e. ‘is not really so safe a course as to go to 
war; or ‘is really more dangerous than to go to war.’ 


126. 2. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν πρέσβεις πέμψαντες of Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐκέλευον τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους τὸ ἄγος ἐλαύνειν τῆς θεοῦ. 
ἄγος ἐλαύνειν, to drive out the pollution, or curse, which was sup- 
posed to rest on the heads of certain persons. Compare i. 135 
init. of δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὡς καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄγος κρίναντος, ἀντεπέταξαν τοῖς 
Λακεδαιμονίοις ἐλαύνειν abré. Hence the only way of expelling the 
curse was by expelling them. Compare i. 139 init. περὶ τῶν ἐναγῶν 
τῆς ἐλάσεως. 


126.6. ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις, Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται, Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου 
μεγίστη, ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐν ἢ πανδημεὶ θύουσι, πολλοὶ οὐχ ἱερεῖα ἀλλὰ 
θύματα ἐπιχώρια. 

1) ‘For the Athenians also have a greatest festival of Zeus, namely, 
of Zeus Meilichius, the Diasia as it is called.’ Or 2) altering the 
punctuation, ἔστι yap καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις Διάσια, ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτή κιτ.λ. 
‘For the Athenians also have a festival of Zeus, namely, the Diasia, 
which is called the greatest festival of Zeus Meilichius.’ 

In neither case is the καί precisely accurate, for, although there 
was both at Athens and at Olympia a festival, and a ‘ greatest 
festival,’ of Zeus, there was at Olympia neither a ‘ greatest festival 
of Zeus Meilichius,’ nor a ‘ Diasia.’ 


126.11. καθεζομένους δέ τινας καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν Σεμνῶν θεῶν ἐν τοῖς βωμοῖς ἐν τῇ 
παρόδῳ διεχρήσαντο. 

ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ 1*) with καθεζομένους, ‘who had taken their places at 

the altar as they were being led to execution past it.’ The altar 

here spoken of is not that in the Acropolis. Or 2) with διεχρήσαντο, 

‘they slew them in passing the altar as they placed themselves at 


NOTES, BOOK I. 77 


it.” The sense favours 1), the order of the words 2). The 126.11. 
CX Pression ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ, ‘in passing the altar,’ applies better to 

t<= prisoners, who first ran to the altar, than to their captors 

¥ Eno followed them thither. 


*AvrexeAevoy δὲ καὶ of ᾿Αθηναῖοι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους τὸ ἀπὸ Ταινάρου 128. I. 
®-yos ἐλαύνειν. οἱ γὰρ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἀναστήσαντές ποτε ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ 
ΚΥ οσειδῶνος ἀπὸ Ταινάρου τῶν Εἱλώτων ἱκέτας, ἀπαγαγόντες διέφθειραν. 

διὸ δὴ καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς νομίζουσι τὸν μέγαν σεισμὸν γενέσθαι ἐν Σπάρτῃ. 

a) τὸ ἀπὸ Ταινάρου, ‘arising out of the affair of Taenarus.’ 6) ἀπὸ 
Taydpov, merely in the local sense, with ἀναστήσαντες, ‘ raising them 
up and taking them from Taenarus.’ 

Cp. Ar. Ach. 509,— 

ἐγὼ δὲ μισῶ μὲν Λακεδαιμονίους σφόδρα, 
καὐτοῖς ὁ Ποσειδῶν, οὑπὶ Ταινάρῳ θεός, 
σείσας ἁπᾶσιν ἐμβάλοι τὰς οἰκίας. 


Cp. also note on i. 102. 2. 


καὶ παρὰ Παυσανίαν ἐς Βυζάντιον ἐπιστολὴν ἀντεπετίθει αὐτῷ ws τά- 129. 1. 
χιστα διαπέμψαι καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ἀποδεῖξαι καὶ ἤν τι αὐτῷ Παυσανίας 
παραγγέλλῃ περὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ πραγμάτων, πράσσειν ὡς ἄριστα καὶ πισ- 
τότατα. 

The words διαπέμψαι here, and διέπεμψεν just below, indicate that 
the satrap sent and did not take the lIctter to Pausanias. But how 
in that case could he show him the seal? The word ἀποδεῖξαι must 
be taken in a less strict sense, not ‘ show him the seal,’ but ‘draw 
his attention to it,’ or ‘tell the messenger to show it him.’ That 
the satrap himself could not have gone to Byzantium is evident, for 
it was now in the hands of the Athenians. 

σφραγίς is the royal seal attached to the letter. Compare Xen. 
Hell. i. 4. 3, ἐπιστολήν re ἔφερε τοῖς κάτω πᾶσι τὸ βασίλειον σφράγισμα 
ἔχουσαν, ἐν ἣ ἐνὴν καὶ τάδε : vii. 1. 39, ὡς δὲ οἱ Θηβαῖοι ἐκάλεσαν ἀπὸ 
τῶν πόλεων ἁπασῶν ἀκουσομένους τῆς παρὰ βασιλέως ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ ὁ 
Πέρσης, ὁ φέρων τὰ γράμματα, δείξας τὴν βασιλέως σφραγῖδα, ἀνέγνω τὰ 
γεγραμμένα κιτλ. 


᾿ τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐλεγεῖον οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐξεκόλαψαν εὐθὺς τύτε ἀπὸ τοῦ 132. 3. 


132. 3. 


133. 


78 THUCYDIDES. 


τρίποος τοῦτο, καὶ ἐπέγραψαν ὀνομαστὶ τὰς πόλεις, ὅσαι Evyxabedovce™ 
τὸν βάρβαρον ἔστησαν τὸ ἀνάθημα᾽ τοῦ μέντοι Παυσανίον ἀδίκημα xo 
τοῦτο ἐδόκει εἶναι, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐν τούτῳ καθειστήκει, πολλῷ μᾶλλον wap 
μοιον πραχθῆναι ἐφαίνετο τῇ παρούσῃ διανοίᾳ. 

μέντοι. This act of Pausanias, though the Lacedaemonians= 
obliterated the inscription at the time, still gave offence :—«ai—— 
xat— ; it appeared wrong in itself, and also received a still darker 
colour when interpreted by his subsequent conduct. Observe τοῦτο 
referring to the first offence, ἐν τούτῳ to the subsequent treason 
of Pausanias. 

The correction τότε, for τοῦτο, is unnecessary. For τοῦτο means 
‘the offence as it was regarded at the time,’ cp. note on ii. 15. 5. 
But πολλῷ μᾶλλον is slightly inaccurate. For the correspondence 
between his past offence and his present designs would not be 
observed at all before the latter came to light. 

The same tripod is mentioned by Herod. ix. 81, δεκάτην ἐξελόντες 
tp ἐν Δελφοῖσι θεῷ, an’ ἧς ὁ τρίπους ὁ χρύσεος ἀνετέθη, ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ 
τρικαρήνου ὄφιος τοῦ χαλκέου ἐπεστεὼς ἄγχιστα τοῦ βωμοῦ;ς;. A bronze 
serpent, believed to be identical with this, still stands in the 
Hippodrome at Constantinople. See an article by Dr. Frick 
in the Archdologischer Anzeiger, June, 1856, No. go; Stein, 
Herodotus, ad loc.; Rawlinson, Herodotus, ad loc. and Appendix. 

Upon the serpent is inscribed a list of Greek states nearly 
identical with that recorded by Pausanias, v. 23. 1, to have been 
inscribed upon the votive statue of Zeus at Olympia after the 
Persian wars. It should be observed that Thucydides speaks 
of the inscription as being on the tripod, while Herodotus dis- 
tinguishes the tripod from the serpent on which it stood. Never- 
theless the evidence (for which see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 
ch. xvii) seems satisfactorily to establish the identity of the monu- 
ment now at Constantinople with that mentioned by Herodotus 
and Thucydides. 


τότε δὲ οἱ ἔφοροι, δείξαντος αὐτοῦ τὰ γράμματα, μᾶλλον μὲν ἐπίστευσαν, 

αὐτήκοοι δὲ βουληθέντες ἔτι γενέσθαι αὐτοῦ Παυσανίου τι λέγοντος, ἀπὸ 
δι ~ 9 ’ en r) 4 9 o ‘a 

παρασκευῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπον ἐπὶ Ταίναρον ἱκέτον οἰχομένου καὶ σκηνησαμένου 


διπλῆν διαφράγματι καλύβην, ἐς ἣν τῶν τε ἐφόρων ἐντός τινας ἔκρυψε, 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 79 


scexna- ΤΙιαυσανίου ws αὐτὸν ἐλθόντος καὶ ἐρωτῶντος τὴν πρόφασιν τῆς ἱκετείας, 183. 
τίσ OGorrn πάντα σαφῶς. 
=< before ἐφόρων 1) is connected with the καί which follows by 
sound (see note on i, 9. 3. ὃ 3) and by association of ideas. The 
presence of the ephors and of Pausanias in the same hut are 
maturally brought into relation. But there is no grammatical 
cOrFnection between τέ and καί, for καί joins the participles ἐλθόντος, 
€partinros with οἰχομένου, σκηνησαμένου. 

2) There may be an anacoluthon, τέ and καί connecting a par- 
ticiple with a finite verb, as though the second clause had run 
raz Παυσανίας ἦλθε. 

3) τέ, καί, may join ἔκρυψε and ἥσθοντο, and the relative character 
of the clause és ἥν «.r.A. may be forgotten in the length of the 
sentence, which is thus left incomplete. 

According to 3) either ἐν ἢ is latent in és ἦν, or ἐς ἥν is dropped 
out OF sight in the clause καὶ Παυσανίου ὡς αὐτὰν ἔλθόντος κιτιλ, For 
8 Sirwa lar irregularity cp. note on i. 78. 2. 


QF weuévov τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τά τε περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα καὶ τἄλλα ἀπο- 188. 

Giireemsros καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὡς οὐδὲν πώποτε αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς βασιλέα 
das παραβάλοιτο, προτιμηθείη δ᾽ ἐν ἴσῳ τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν διακόνων 

ταεγεῖν͵ 
ἘΞ ὰ ther 1) the other messengers were to have death, and he with 
therary | as the reward of their special services; προτιμηθείη ΞΞ ἀξιωθείη. 
Or <=) προτιμηθεΐη ἐν ἴσῳ is an ironical oxymoron. ‘His prefer- 
τεσ was to be treated like the rest and put to death,’ i.e. οὐδὲν 
*PO' ew μηθείη τῶν ἄλλων ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἴσῳ ἀξιωθείη. 


Pee) αὐτὸν ἐμέλλησαν μὲν ἐς τὸν Καιάδαν, οὗπερ τοὺς κακούργους, ἐμβάλλειν 184. 4. 
ore ane ἔδοξε πλησίον wou κατορύξαι. ὁ δὲ θεὸς ὁ ἐν Δελφοῖς τόν re τάφον 
UTES poy ἔχρησε τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις μετενεγκεῖν οὗπερ ἀπέθανε κιτ᾿λ. 
excoipyous, scil. εἰώθεσαν, understood from ἐμέλλησαν, an explana- 
SX which has passed into the text in the majority of MSS. 
Ξεχ - λησίον που, either near the Caeadas ; or near the place where he 
die <3, the God afterwards ordering him to be buried on the exact spot. 


SABpdov δὲ ἡ γραφή, Ere‘ Θεμιστοκλῆς ἥκω mapa σέ, ὃς κακὰ μὲν πλεῖστα 137. 4. 
ἤἥνων εἴργασμαι τὸν ὑμέτερον οἶκον, ὅσον χρόνον τὸν σὸν πατέρα 


8ο THUCYDIDES. 


137. 4. ἐπιόντα ἐμοὶ ἀνάγκῃ ἡμυνόμην, πολὺ 8 ἔτι πλείω ἀγαθά, ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ 
ἀσφαλεῖ μὲν ἐμοί, ἐκείνῳ δὲ ἐν ἐπικινδύνῳ πάλιν ἡ ἀποκομιδὴ ἐγίγνετο. 
καί μοι εὐεργεσία ὀφείλεται, (γράψας τὴν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τῆς 
ἀναχωρήσεως καὶ τὴν τῶν γεφυρὼν, ἣν ψευδῶς προσεποιήσατο, τότε δὲ 
αὑτὸν οὐ διάλυσιν,) κιτιλ. 

The motive οὗ Themistocles was to bring on the battle in the 
straits, which in fact led to the defeat of Xerxes. But it is not 
surprising that after the event he should attempt to give a new 
interpretation to this astute move, though we can hardly suppose 
that such a double policy was intended at the time. We need not 
assume that Xerxes had his eyes opened by the defeat to the real 
character of the proceeding. 

At any rate, we are informed, in Herod. viii. 110, that after the 
battle Themistocles did actually send a second message to the 
King by the same messenger, as if his treachery were unsuspected, 
informing him that he might retreat at leisure, for the bridges were 
not to be broken down. And according to Herodotus, viii. 109 
fin., he really intended on this second occasion to make himself 
a friend of the King and secure himself against the consequences 
of a Greek reverse. But it must be observed that the pretended 
obligation was not claimed until fourteen or fifteen years after- 
wards. 

It has been supposed that the words here, τὴν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγ- 
yehow τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως, refer to the second message. But a) the 
words in which Thucydides elsewhere speaks of Themistocles, 
(és αἰτιώτατος ἐν τῷ στενῷ ναυμαχῆσαι ἐγένετο, ὅπερ σαφέστατα ἔσωσε τὰ 
πράγματα, i. 74 init.) make it probable that he is referring not to 
the second but to the first message. ὁ) The second, according to 
Herodotus, was sent from Andros, not from Salamis. And ὦ) 
τὴν mpoayyeAow τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως WOuld mean ‘the warning to retreat,’ 
not the information that Xerxes might retreat at leisure. 

Here, however, a difficulty arises, Themistocles was ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ, 
and Xerxes was retreating and ἐν ἐπικινδύνῳ, when the second mes- 
sage was sent, but this would be untrue of the first. If Thucydides 
has not confused two occasions, there is a slip of language, and 
the words ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ μὲν ἐμοί x.r.A. apply only to the second of the 
two clauses which follow, καὶ τὴν τῶν γεφυρῶν xr. 


NOTES, BOOK IJ. 81 


ἣν ψευδῶς προσεποιήσατο. It has been objected that Themistocles 137, 4. 
dissuaded the Athenians from breaking down the bridges; so that 
these words must mean ‘the credit of which, as ἃ service lo the 
King, he falsely claimed,’ (Classen, Bbhme). But in reality The- 
Mistocles originally proposed that Xerxes should be pursued and. 
the bridges broken down; to Eurybiades who opposed him, and 
Who was supported by the other Peloponnesian commanders, really 
belonged the credit which Themistocles is here said to claim. 
He did not change sides until he perceived that he had no chance 

Of carrying his point with the majority; he then began to dis- 
Suade the Athenians, who were still eager to sail to the Hellespont, 
from ‘the execution of his own proposal. See Herod. viii. 108-110. 


dsc wig yap ξυνέσει καὶ οὔτε προμαθὼν ἐς αὐτὴν οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἐπιμαθὼν 188. 3. 
τῶν re παραχρῆμα & ἐλαχίστης βουλῆς κράτιστος γνώμων, καὶ τῶν μελλόν- 
τῶν aii πλεῖστον τοῦ γενησομένου ἄριστος εἰκαστής. 

“ ‘WVithout study before and without study after’ the occasion for 
2CU. Oy» had arisen. 


κακὰ ἃ μὲν μετὰ χεῖρας ἔχοι, καὶ ἐξηγήσασθαι οἷός re’ ὧν δὲ ἄπειρος 188. 3. 
«ἴη, ἀχρῖναι ἱκανῶς οὐκ ἀπήλλακτο. τό τε ἄμεινον ἢ χεῖρον ἐν τῷ ἀφανεῖ ἔτι 
“Pew «Sapa μάλιστα. 
€S epioarbas, either ‘to explain,’ or ‘to conduct to an issue,’ 
*P<>ssible meaning of the word, but without authority. In either 
“Se= the antithesis between ὧν ἄπειρος εἴη and ἃ pera χεῖρας ἔχοι 
(WERE ch cannot mean ‘things in which he was practically versed,’ 
~ ) is somewhat forced. 


"Se ἄμεινον ἢ χεῖρον, the prospective advantages or disadvantages of 
4 & πα Ὁ policy. , 
-ἰς καλοῦντες ἐ ἐπεργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ τῆς dopicrov. 139. 2. 
Ke is not known with certainty whether the γῇ ἱερά and the γῆ 
Gb} esros were the same (as the Scholiast here says), or (as the 
T€E>ectition of the article would seem to indicate) different pieces of 
S™<>auind: and whether ἀόριστος means ‘not included within the boun- 
Gawziies of Attica and Megara, or ‘not marked out by boundaries 
aS the property of private persons.’ 
VOL. IL G 


140. 4. 


141, 6. 


142. 3. 


82 THUCYDIDES. 


ὑμῶν δὲ μηδεὶς νομίσῃ περὶ βραχέος dy πολεμεῖν εἰ rd Μεγαρέων ψήφισμα 
μὴ καθέλοιμεν, ὅπερ μάλιστα προὔχονται, εἶ καθαιρεθείη, μὴ ἂν γίγνεσθαι 
τὸν πόλεμον. 

εἰ καθαιρεθείη x.r.d. is epexegetical of ὅπερ, ‘ which they put forward 
above all things; namely, this about it, that if it were rescinded, etc.’ 

Compare Aristoph. Peace, 606-611,— 

εἶτα Περικλέης φοβηθεὶς μὴ μετάσχοι τῆς τύχης, 

τὰς φύσεις ὑμῶν δεδοικὼς καὶ τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον, 
πρὶν παθεῖν τι δεινόν, αὐτὸς ἐξέφλεξε τὴν πόλιν, 
ἐμβαλὼν σπινθῆρα μικρὸν Μεγαρικοῦ ψηφίσματος, 
κἀξεφύσησεν τοσοῦτον πόλεμον, ὥστε τῷ καπνῷ 
πάντας Ἕλληνας δακρῦσαι, τούς r ἐκεῖ, τούς τ᾽ ἐνθάδε. 

For the sentiments which follow, Poppo, ed. maj. compares what 
Hume, History of England, ch. Ixiv. says of De Witt: ‘It was 
ever his maxim that no independent government should yield to 
another any evident point of reason or equity, and that all such 
concessions, so far from preventing war, served to no other purpose 
than to provoke fresh claims and insolencies.’ 


πολεμεῖν δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὁμοίαν ἀντιπαρασκενὴν ἀδύνατοι, ὅτ᾽ ἂν μήτε βουλευ- 
τηρίῳ ἑνὶ χρώμενοι παραχρῆμά τι ὀξέως ἐπιτελῶσι «.7.X. 

ὅτ᾽ ἄν bears a sense a) of causality, 4) of indefinite time, ‘ seeing 
that they cannot execute anything quickly if ever they want to do 
so. Cp. beginning of next ch. μέγιστον δέ, τῇ τῶν χρημάτων σπάνει 
κωλύσονται, ὅτ᾽ ἂν σχολῇ αὐτὰ ποριζόμενοι διαμέλλωσι, and i. 36 init. 
καὶ οὐ τὰ κράτιστα αὐταῖς προνοῶν ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἐς τὸν μέλλυντα καὶ ὅσον ov 


παρόντα πόλεμον ἐνδοιάζῃ χωρίον προσλαβεῖν x.T.A. 


καὶ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἡ ἐπιτείχισις, οὐδὲ τὸ ναυτικὸν αὐτῶν ἄξιον φοβηθῆναι. 
τὴν μὲν γὰρ χαλεπὸν καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ πόλιν ἀντίπαλον παρασκευάσασθαι, 
ἧπου δὴ ἐν πολεμίᾳ τε καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον ἐκείνοις ἡμῶν ἀντεπιτετειχισμένων" 
φρούριον δ᾽ εἰ ποιήσονται, τῆς μὲν γῆς βλάπτοιεν ἄν τι μέρος καταδρομαῖς 
καὶ αὐτομολίαις, οὐ μέντοι ἱκανόν γε ἔσται ἐπιτειχίζειν τε κωλύειν ἡμᾶς 
πλεύσαντας ἐς τὴν ἐκείνων, καί, ἧπερ ἰσχύομεν, ταῖς ναυσὶν ἀμύνεσθαι. 

Two kinds of ἐπιτείχισις are referred to: 4) the founding of ἃ 
city in the neighbourhood (like Heraclea, iii. 92, 93, Anaea, An- 
tandrus, iv. 52, 75,) intended to control Athens; δ) the raising of 
detached forts, such as Decelea. 


NOTES, BOOK I. : 83 

πόλιν ἀντίπαλον is in loose apposition with τὴν μὲν γάρ. ‘For the 142. 3. 
Bret (scil. ἐπετείχισε»), in the form of a city which could compete 
With us, it would be difficult to establish.’ 


ὠτεπιτετειχισμένων, that is to say, while we already have our city 
Which is an ἐπιτείχισις OVer against their new city if it were possible 
for them to establish it. ‘The word, although describing obscurely 
ἃ fact sufficiently obvious, has a rhetorical force. There is no. 
eason for giving it a future perfect sense, as though Pericles were 
"ler ng to some future city which the Athenians were to raise as 
the r-iwal to Sparta. The Athenians had certainly no idea of found- 
0g am χίλιες ἀντίπαλος to Sparta, though they might ἃ φρούριον, as at 
Pylo == ᾿ς. and again on the Laconian coast (vii. 26 med.). 
Be=» th Decelea and Pylos (cp. especially the words ¢émrayife» 
Kelis ax» ἡμᾶς x.1.A.) seem to be anticipated in this passage. 


a 


τὸ BM ναυτικὸν τέχνης ἐστὶν ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλο τι, καὶ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, ὅταν 142. 9g. 
τύχῃ... ἐκ παρέργου μελετᾶσθαι, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον μηδὲν ἐκείνῳ πάρεργον ἄλλο 
γίγνε «-αἶον-θαι, 


τέ Sex 27s 1)* is a genitive of relation, literally, ‘naval skill in relation 
to ἀπε ἄς is like anything else in relation to art,’ in other words, naval 
skill iis like skill of other kinds. Cp. for examples, Prof. Campbell’s 
Ess=a_r~y on Language of Sophocles, § 9. 3. 

τ = 2) ‘naval skill is, like other things,’ i.e. like anything else 
vhi<= ς requires art, ‘a matter of art.’ Cp. vi. 18 fin. καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἂν 
μὲν Ἂν χυχάζῃ, τρίψεσθαί τε αὐτὴν περὶ αὐτήν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλο τι, καὶ πάντων 
τὴν «ἢ ς, στήμην ἐγγηράσεσθαι. 


“ὩΛΣς, δὲ τόδε τε ὑπάρχει, καί, ὅπερ κράτιστον, κυβερνήτας ἔχομεν πολίτας 148.1 
καὶ “why ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν πλείους καὶ ἀμείνους ἢ πᾶσα ἡ ἄλλη Ἑλλάς. 
ἕἝ τῷ κινδύνῳ οὐδεὶς ἂν δέξαιτο τῶν ξένων τήν τε αὑτοῦ φεύγειν, καὶ 2, 
perce τῆς ἥσσονος dua ἐλπίδος ὀλίγων ἡμερῶν ἕνεκα μεγάλον μισθοῦ δόσεως 
KEE mens ξυναγωνίζεσθαι. 
Spy ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν has sometimes been taken to mean ‘ our other 
PECL y officers.’ Compare vi. 31 med. But the fact would not be 
ciently important to be introduced here. 
he argument is a) that the pilots of the fleet are Athenian 
CICA ens, 6) That the Athenian sailors, whether citizens or not, 
G2 


143. 1. 


84 THUCYDIDES. 


are the best and most numerous in Hellas, and that therefore ἴσαι “πα 1° 
loss of a few hired sailors will not matter. And c) that ἔμπας he 
€évos themselves will be less likely to desert because of σασσας. Mik 
danger of fighting against so superior a force, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ κινδύν-- ---“πακ νι 
w.t.A. 

τὴν αὑτοῦ φεύγειν, ‘to lose his home,’ because after enlisting in thusass I | 
Spartan service no native of any town under Athenian control woule=—— EZ_al 
be allowed to return to it. 


BOOK II. 


καὶ Αἰνησίου ἐφόρου ἐν Σπάρτῃ, καὶ Πυθοδώρου ἔτι δύο μῆνας ἄρχοντος 2. I. 
᾿Αθηναίοις, μετὰ τὴν ἐν Ποτιδαίᾳ μάχην μηνὶ ἕκτῳ, καὶ ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ 
arA. 

It is difficult to fix the date of the attack on Plataea with certainty. 
It took place a) ‘when Pythodorus had two months of his archonship 
to run,’ δ) ‘at the beginning of spring,’ c) about eighty days before 
the first Peloponnesian invasion of Attica, which occurred τοῦ 
θέρους καὶ τοῦ σίτον ἀκμάζοντος, ii. 19 init., 4) about the time of the 
new moon (ii. 4 med.). But the first of these data appears to give 
a different result to the second and third. 

a) The archons came into office on the first day of Hecatom- 
baeon, the first month of the Attic year. Hecatombaeon might 
begin as early as the beginning of July (according to others towards 
the end of June), or as late as the beginning of August (according 
to others towards the end of July). The attack on Plataea will thus 
fall at the earliest towards the end of April. 

5) The meaning of ‘at the beginning of spring,’ dua ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ, 
is shown by a comparison of iv. 117 init. Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ καὶ ᾿Αθη- 
vei. ἅμα ἦρι τοῦ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους εὐθὺς ἐκεχειρίαν ἐποιήσαντο 
ἐγιαύσιον With iv. 118 fin. καὶ ὡμολόγησαν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν εἶναι 
ἐγιαντόν, ἄρχειν δὲ τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν, τετράδα ἐπὶ δέκα τοῦ ᾿Ελαφηβολιῶνος 
μηνός, and v. 19 init. ἄρχει δὲ τῶν σπονδῶν... . ἄρχων ᾿Αλκαῖος, ᾽᾿Ελαφη- 
βολιῶνος μηνὸς ἕκτῃ φθίνοντος with v. 20 init. αὗται αἱ σπονδαὶ ἐγένοντο 
τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἅμα ἦρι. 

The date thus obtained for the attack on Plataea would be the 
middle or end of Elaphebolion, i.e. roughly speaking, some time 
in March, or the beginning of April. But the consideration men- 
tioned in @) fixes the date within these limits to about March § or 
April 7, on which days there was a new moon. See Boeckh, 
Mondcyclen der Hellenen, Jahrb. fir Class, Phil. Suppl. i. p. 78. It 


86 THUCYDIDES. 


. must be remembered that ‘the beginning of spring’ is a point in the 
natural year, of which the place in the civil year might vary con- 
siderably. In the passages just quoted, the time described as ἅμα 
ἦρι τοῦ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους is actually ten days earlier according to 
the civil year than that described as τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἅμα ἦρι, 
the first being the 14th of Elaphebolion, s.c. 423, the second being 
the 25th of Elaphebolion, s.c. 421. 

c) In ii. 19 init. μετὰ τὰ ἐν Πλαταίᾳ τῶν ἐσελθόντων Θηβαίων γενόμενα 
ἡμέρᾳ ὀγδοηκοστῇ μάλιστα τοῦ θέρους καὶ τοῦ σίτου ἀκμάζοντος, ἐσέβαλον ἐς 
τὴν ᾿Αττικήν, τοῦ σίτου ἀκμάζοντος denotes probably the time, not 
when the corn was ripe for the harvest, but when it was ripening, 
or in full ear, i.e. in Attica about May 10—June 10, harvest be- 
ginning about June 15 (see Classen in loc. and Arn. ii. 19), or 
according to Mommsen, Griech. Jahreszeiten, p. 571, 572, a month 
earlier. Cp. iii. 1 init. and 15 fin., where a considerable period 
intervenes between the ἀκμάζοντος τοῦ σίτου and the harvest; also 
iv. 1 init., 2 init., and 6 med., where πρὶν τὸν σῖτον ἐν ἀκμῇ εἶναι ΞΞ- τοῦ 
σίτου ἔτι χλώρον ὄντος and περὶ σίτου ἐκβολήν. 

These passages tend to prove that the word ἀκμάζειν refers to 
some time when the com, though in full ear, was not yet ready for 
the harvest. And although it is not impossible that ἀκμάζειν may 
after all include the beginning of harvest, and so may extend to a 
few days later, yet considerations of another kind show that the 
invasion cannot have taken place much after June 15. For the 
solar eclipse which is mentioned in ii. 28 among the events 
subsequent to the evacuation of Attica by the Lacedaemonians 
(ii. 24-32) is calculated to have taken place on Aug. 3. Now they 
had remained in the country an uncertain time—as long as their 
supplies lasted (ii. 23 fin.)—but probably not less than thirty 
days; as forty days was the longest (ii. 57 fin.) and fifteen 
days the shortest time (iv. 6 fin.) which they ever remained ; the 
- Jatter under peculiar circumstances. To this period of thirty 
- days occupied by the invasion has to be added a further uncertain 
period comprehending the events between the retreat of the Pelo- 
ponnesians and the eclipse, ti. 24—27. Thus considerably more 
_than a month would seem to have elapsed between the eclipse of 
Aug..3 and the invasion of Attica. And for the attack on Plataea, 


NOTES, BOOK 11]. 87 


eighty days before the invasion, May 10—June 10, we are led back 2. 1. 
to Feb. 20—March 20, i.e. to the new moon of March §, or 
within a few days of it. 

It seems to follow, after making every allowance for the pos- 
sible difference between the civil and natural year at Athens, that 
there is a discrepancy of about six weeks between the various state- 
ments of Thucydides. The difference may be reduced to nothing 
if we put the attack on Plataea about the time of the next new moon, 
Apnil 7, and suppose a) that ἀκμάζοντος τοῦ σίτου extends to the be- 
ginning of harvest, 4) that the events subsequent to the invasion of 
Attica are not narrated in chronological order, so that the eclipse 
of Aug. 3 might have immediately followed the evacuation of the 
country, ¢) that Pythodorus might have been said to have two 
months of his archonship to run during the Jast fortnight or three 
weeks of his tenth month of office. (Cp. Arn. on ii. 19.) But 
then we have to assume, not only the latest possible date (towards 
the end of June) for the invasion of Attica, but also the earliest 
possible date (about June 25) for the end of Pythodorus’ archon- 
ship. This makes the reconciliation extremely doubtful. We must 
suppose then, either that there is some mistake or confusion in the 
words of Thucydides, or that an error has crept into the text. 
This might be rectified by the emendation of Kriiger (Studien, 
i. 221 foll.) who would read τέσσαρας (&) for δύο. On the other hand, 
there is no variation in the MSS., and it may be argued against 
Kriiger, that the Greek phrase, ‘having still so many months of his 
archonship to run,’ is better suited to a shorter than to a longer 
period of time. 

It is evident that Thucydides intended to give a precise mark of 
time. But the state of the Greek calendar was confused, and 
our knowledge of it is imperfect. It is probable indeed, from 
Diodorus xii. 36 and Ptolemy Mey. Συνταξ. iii. 2. p. 162, that the 
first year of Meton’s calendar (which was based on a period of 
nineteen years, and was reckoned from the beginning of Ol. 87. 1, 
the middle of 432 B.c., being the year preceding the Peloponnesian 
war), began with the first new moon (July 15 or 16) after the 
summer solstice (June 27, really 28) of that year. But we do not 
know in what years the intercalary month was added. We cannot 


88 THUCYDIDES. 


. therefore in any case determine within about thirty days how a 


the Attic months corresponded to our own. 

The cycle in common use in Greece, before that of Meton a 
introduced at Athens, appears to have been one of eight yea 22 πὰ 
We are told by Geminus (vi. 35 ¢) that the intercalary mont—— =~ 
were inserted in the 3rd, 5th, and 8th years. It is further proba 7 
from the passages in Diodorus and Ptolemy quoted above, that te—— 
13th Skirophorion of this cycle, Ol. 86. 4, answered to June — 
B.c. 432, of our own reckoning. But we do not know with wha # 
year the cycle began or ended. 

It is further uncertain whether the cycle of Meton came into > 
public use immediately after its promulgation. Ideler and A - 
Mommsen are of opinion that it did; Redlich, Boeckh, E. Muller_..=<  * 
and Unger that it did not. 

a) It has been argued from Aristoph. Clouds, 607-621, that- the = 
Metonic cycle cannot have come into use at that time (423 or 422), - 
or the poet would not have ridiculed the confused state of the calendar. 

But it has been well answered that he may be ridiculing the new 
calendar, to which, although more regular in itself, he may object 
as a novelty. 

6) The arguments of Boeckh against the earlier introduction of 
the Metonic cycle, resting on inscriptions discovered at Athens, 
involve too many conjectures to be at all conclusive. From the 
accounts of the sums of money drawn at particular times by the 
state from the treasuries of Athene and other deities, and of the 
interest reckoned on them, he infers that certain years of the 
Peloponnesian war contained an intercalary month which would 
not have occurred in the Metonic cycle. (Cp. Kirchhoff, Corpus 
Inscrr. Att. vol. i. pp. 146, 148). But his argument assumes that 
we are certain of the distribution of the intercalary month according 
to Meton’s system. 

c) The Scholiast on Aristoph. Clouds mentions an eclipse of the 
moon which took place in the month of Boedromion, Ol. 88. 4. 

Now this eclipse is calculated to have occurred on Oct. 9, B.c. 425. 
It is argued that, if the Metonic cycle had been already in use at 
that date, the civil would not have been so far behind the natural 
year, and the eclipse would have fallen in Pyanepsion, the follow- — 


NOTES, BOOK 71. 89 


i wag month. But the uncertain authority and probably late date of 2. 1. 
t Ine Scholiast renders the argument extremely doubtful. 
The variety of opinion among modern authors may be illustrated 
Koy the following table :-— 
Date of Hecatombaeon Ist, Ol. 87. 2 (431), the first day of the 
year following the attack on Plataea. 


@)clacleris, or cycle of eight years. Metontc cycle. 
Redlich', Aug. 1. Ideler®, July 6. 
Boeckh!, Aug. 1. E. Miller‘, July 5. 
Unger’, Aug. 2. A. Mommsen*, Aug. δ. 
Wates within which Hecatombaeon Ist might vary in different years. 
Octaeleris. Metonic cycle. 
Redlich, July 9—Aug. 7. Ideler, June 25—July 25. 
Boeckh, June 20°—Aug. 7. Miller, June 28—July 27. 
Unger, June 28—Aug. 9. Mommseen, July 14—Aug.12. 


{These dates are according to the Julian calendar. The cor- 
Tesponding dates according to the Gregorian, our present calendar, 
would be five days earlier.) 

Thus we end with uncertainty; but it is often worth while, 
instead of adding a new conjecture, to acknowledge that in this, 
as in many cniical inquiries, if no new evidence can be adduced, 
uncertainty is the only attainable result. Long after authentic 
history begins, the uncertainty of chronology continues, owing to 
the deficiency of early registers and inscriptions, and also to the 
fabrication of dates in a later generation when the truth can no 
longer be recovered. Cp. Boeckh’s excellent remarks on the un- 
certainty of inferences obtained from restored inscriptions (Jahrb. 
Suppl. ii. p. 91). 


σῖτόν τε ἐσήγαγον K.T.A. 6. 4. 


Not, as in the translation, ‘brought in the harvest,’ but ‘ brought 
In corn.’ 


ἢ Boeckh, Jahrb. fiir Class. Phil. Suppl. i., see also Epigraphisch-chronolo- 
Sische Studien, Suppl. ii. 
* Sitzungsb. der Acad. zu Miinchen, 1875. 
5 Handbuch der Chronologie, i. p. 384. 
* Pauly, Real. Encycl. i. 1. ‘Annus.’ 
δ ων fiir Class. Phil. Suppl. i. 
* Until the year 414 8.c., after which it occasionally falls earlier. 


90 THUCYDIDES. 


καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις μὲν πρὸς ταῖς αὐτοῦ ὑπαρχούσαις ἐξ ᾿Ιταλίας καὶ 
Σικελίας τοῖς τἀκείνων ἑλομένοις ναῦς ἐπετάχθησαν ποιεῖσθαι κατὰ μέγεθος 
τῶν πόλεων, ὡς ἐς τὸν πάντα ἀριθμὸν πεντακοσίων νεῶν ἐσομένων, καὶ ἀργύ- 
ριον ῥητὸν ἑτοιμάζειν, τά τ᾽ ἄλλα ἡσυχάζοντας καὶ ᾿Αθηναίους δεχομένους 
μιᾷ νηΐ. 

The sense given in the translation is obtained by taking @) αὐτοῦ, 
‘on the spot,’ as meaning in Italy and Sicily, 5) ἐξ ᾿Ιταλίας καὶ 
Σικελίας, either with τοῖς τἀκείνων ἑλομένοις, Or with ὑπαρχούσαις in 
explanation of αὐτοῦ, ε) the dative ἑλομένοις as governed by ὑπαρχού- 
cas, and d) by supplying either οἱ τἀκείνων ἑλόμενοι from τοῖς τἀκείνων 
ἑλομένοις, Or ai πόλεις by anticipation from κατὰ μέγεθος τῶν πόλεων, 
as the nominative to ἐπετάχθησαν. If this explanation is too harsh, 
there is no difficulty in altering vais (the accusative) into νῆες. 

It is impossible to take πρὸς ταῖς αὐτοῦ ὑπαρχούσαις ἐξ ᾿Ιταλίας καὶ 
Σικελίας together, in the sense ‘in addition to the ships already on 
the coast of Peloponnesus from Italy and Sicily.’ For it is clear 
from iii. 86 init. that the Lacedaemonians had as yet received no 
help from their Italian and Sicilian allies, ξύμμαχοι δὲ τοῖς μὲν Zupa- 
κοσίοις ἦσαν, πλὴν Καμαριναίων, αἱ ἄλλαι Awpides πόλεις, αἷπερ καὶ πρὸς 
τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων τὸ πρῶτον ἀρχομένου τοῦ πολέμου ξυμμαχίαν ἐτάχθη- 
σαν, οὐ μέντοι ξυνεπολέμησάν γε. 

There is no regular construction for ἐς τὰ ἄλλα ἡσυχάζοντας καὶ 
᾿Αθηναίους δεχομένους μιᾷ νη. The words are really governed by 
some such expressions as οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι vais ἐπέταξαν ποιεῖσθαι latent 
in τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις. .. ναῦς ἐπετάχθησαν ποιεῖσθαι. 

The number 500 evidently includes all the ships, both of the 
Lacedaemonians and of their Italian and Sicilian allies. Even on 
this supposition such a number seems extraordinary, considering 
that the Athenians themselves never had more than 300 triremes at 
the most (ii. 13 fin., iii. 17), and the number of the Peloponnesian 
fleet, in the earlier years of the war at least, never approached 100. 
(Cp. ii. 86 med., iii. 16 fin., 76, iv. 2 med., 16 fin.) 


καὶ πολλὰ μὲν λόγια €A€youro, πολλὰ δὲ χρησμολόγοι ἧδον. 

The opposition is not between λόγια and χρησμόλογοι, but between 
the general circulation of oracles, frequently of unknown origin, 
among the people, and the special predictions of professional 


NOTES, BOOK ΠΙ. gt 


collectors of oracles. ‘ Many oracles were in men’s mouths, and 8. 2. 
many were the predictions recited by soothsayers.’ 


ἔτι δὲ Δῆλος ἐκινήθη ὀλίγον πρὸ τούτων, πρότερον οὕπω σεισθεῖσα, ἀφ᾽ 8. 3. 
οὗ Ἕλληνες μέμνηνται. 

Yet Herodotus (vi. 98) makes mention of a previous earthquake 
(in 490), ‘the first and last which had taken place up to his time.’ 
‘The contradiction may show equally well 1) that Thucydides was un- 
acquainted with his history, or 2) that he intentionally criticised him. 


ἐν τούτῳ re κεκωλῦσθαι ἐδόκει ἑκάστῳ τὰ πράγματα, ᾧ μή τις αὐτὸς 8, 4. 
“παρέσται. 

Either 1)* ἐν τούτῳ is ‘the antecedent to ᾧ; in which case it is 
unnecessary to supply any substantive with 3, because ἐν τούτῳ is a 
familiar adverbial phrase. ᾧ may be taken as the dative after παρέσται, 
or with ἐν supplied from ἐν τούτῳ. 

Or 2) ἐν τούτῳ may be explained, not as referring to ᾧ, but in the 
general sense of ‘here,’ or ‘at this point of affairs,’ ἐν τούτῳ, scil. 
τῶν πραγμάτων. With ᾧ may be supplied πράγματι from τὰ πράγματα. 
There appears to be a confusion between ἐδόκεε τὸ πρᾶγμα ᾧ μή 
τις and ἐδόκει τὰ πράγματα ols μή τις. 

A nearly similar form of words occurs iv. 14 med. in the de- 
scription of the conflict which took place in the harbour of 
Sphacteria, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κεκωλῦσθαι ἐδόκει ἕκαστος, ᾧ μή τινι καὶ αὐτὸς 
ἔργῳ παρῆν, where ¢pyy, which is probably not used here because 
καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ has preceded, is supplied with ᾧ, (unless indeed 
ἔργῳ is to be taken in the sense of ‘in reality.’) 

The certain and predestined future παρέσται corresponds to the 
still more absolute perfect κεκωλῦσθαι: ‘every one thought that things 
had come to a stop when he was not going to be present.’ 


ἄλλαι πόλεις ai ὑποτελεῖς οὖσαι ἐν ἔθνεσι τοσοῖσδε, Καρία ἡ ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ, 9. 4. 
Δωριῆς Καρσὶ πρόσοικοι x.7.X. 

The words Kapia κιτιλ. are, grammatically speaking, in appo- 
sition with ἄλλαι πόλεις, but are connected in sense with the 
cognate idea ἔθνεσι τοσοῖσδε. 


νῆσοι ὅσαι ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ Κρήτης πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα, πᾶσαι 9, 4. 
αἱ ἄλλαι Κυκλάδες πλὴν Μήλου καὶ Θήρας. 


92 THUCYDIDES. 


9.4. 1)* The island of Crete and the Peloponnesus are regardece— as 
enclosing the whole of the Aegean sea, and dividing it from τααὶς 
Mediterranean. évrés=inside Peloponnesus and Crete. The ca =—* 
πᾶσαι αἱ ἄλλαι Kuxdades πλὴν Μήλου καὶ Θήρας is partially explanat ««ΞΞΞ:3 0 

or resumptive; ‘including all the Cyclades except Melos a— πὸ 

Thera ;’ αἱ ἄλλαι refers not to what has gone before, but to π΄ ¥ 

MnAov καὶ Θήρας which follows. b 

2) Poppo, who translates ἐντός ‘on this side of,’ suggests that = Ὁ 

the first clause only the islands due east of the Peloponnesus aw - a 

intended, and by the second, those lying to the north-east of it, > 

the northern part of the Aegean, Andros, Scyros, and Peparethue = 

But why should Melos and Thera, which lie in the southern part ΟΞ 

the Aegean, be excepted in the second clause and not in the first z™ “-' 


it 


10.2. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἑκάστοις ἑτοῖμα γίγνοιτο, κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τὸν εἰρημένοι» a 


ξυνήεσαν τὰ δύο μέρη ἀπὸ πόλεως ἑκάστης ἐς τὸν ᾿Ισθμόν. 
= 


ἐπειδὴ... γίγνοιτο marks the indefinite time, and corresponds to 
the imperfect ξυνήεσαν, ‘whenever any of them were ready,’ i.e. 
‘as soon as they were ready.’ 


Ll. 1. ὅμως δὲ τῆσδε οὔπω μείζονα παρασκενὴν ἔχοντες ἐξήλθομεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
ἐπὶ πόλιν δυνατωτάτην νῦν ἐρχόμεθα, καὶ αὐτοὶ πλεῖστοι καὶ ἄριστοι στρα- 
τεύοντες. 

Both «ai’s=‘also,’ the first contrasting ἐπὶ πόλιν... ἐρχόμεθα with 
ὅμως de... ἐξήλθομεν, and the second contrasting αὐτοὶ... στρατεύοντες 
with ἐπὶ πόλιν... ἐρχόμεθα. The connection is:—‘We are a great 
host, but we must remember that, however strong we may be, 
we are attacking a city which is our equal.’ And then, lest the 
words καὶ ἐπὶ πόλιν δυνατωτάτην viv ἐρχόμεθα coming last should leave 
a discouraging impression on the mind, the first clause, ὅμως δὲ... 
ἐξήλθομεν, is repeated in a slightly different and more emphatic 
form, ‘as the city is great, so is the host.’ 


11. 3. ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεως ἑκάστης ἡγεμόνα καὶ στρατιώτην (χρὴ) τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν 
ἀεὶ προσδέχεσθαι ἐς κίνδυνόν τινα ἥξειν. 


Either 1)* ‘that his own division of the army,will come into 
some danger.’ 


Or 2) ‘that so far as he is concerned he should be always alive 


NOTES, BOOK 11. 93 


-<> the possibility of danger.’ The meaning of τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτόν is more 1], 3. 


.<Riomatic, but the connection with προσδέχεσθαι is forced and 
wer eak. 


πολλάκις τε τὸ ἔλασσον πλῆθος δεδιὸς ἄμεινον ἡμύνατο τοὺς πλέονας, διὰ 11. 4. 
“ὦ καταφρονοῦντας ἀπαρασκεύους γενέσθαι. 


ἄμεινον. Better than the larger army without caution would repel 
a he smaller. 


χρὴ δὲ ἀεὶ ἐν τῇ πολεμίᾳ τῇ μὲν γνώμῃ θαρσαλέους στρατεύειν, τῷ δὲ 11. 5. 
Fpye δεδιότας παρασκευάζεσθαι. 

The antithesis is only partial. γνώμῃ θαρσαλέους answers to ἔργῳ 
«ιιδιότας, but not στρατεύειν to παρασκενάζεσθαι, except in so far as 
«στρατεύειν, which refers to the whole enterprise, is opposed to 
mapacxeva{eoOa, implying the details of preparation. 


πᾶσι γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι καὶ ἐν τῷ παραυτίκα ὁρᾶν πάσχοντάς τι ἄηθες 11. 7. 
ὀργὴ προσπίπτει. 

1) This sentence would have been quite clear if more simply 
expressed ;—-maox γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι καὶ ἐν τῷ παραυτίκα πάσχουσί 
τι ἀηθὲς ὀργὴ προσπίπτει. 

To avoid the baldness of the expression ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι πάσχουσι 
the sentence is resumed in a new form, and ὁρᾶν is introduced from 
ὄμμασι. This change has altered πάσχουσι into πάσχοντας, which 
thus receives a double construction, both with προσπίπτει and with 
ὁρᾶν. ἐν τῷ wapavrixa πάσχοντας ὁρᾶν, ‘to see ourselves actually suffer- 
ing,’ cp. i. 32 fin. καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀδύνατοι ὁρῶμεν ὄντες τῇ οἰκείᾳ μόνον δυνάμει 
περιγενέσθαι. 

As the words now stand we have to supply πάσχουσι with ἐν τοῖς 
ὄμμασι, and to regard the clause which follows, ἐν τῷ mapavrixa ὁρᾶν 
πάσχοντάς τι ἄηθες aS an expansion or aggravation of the previous 
words, ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι (πάσχουσι). 

Or 2) ὁρᾶν may be taken after ὀργὴ προσπίπτει, in which some 
such idea as δεινόν ἐστι is involved or latent (Béhme). ‘For anger 
enters into the soul of all men, when they see with their own eyes 
and immediately some unwonted suffering inflicted upon them.’ 


12. 3. 


13. 4. 


13. 5. 


94 THUCYDIDES. 


τοσόνδε εἰπὼν ἐπορεύετο, ὅτι de ἡ ἡμέρα τοῖς Ἕλλησι μεγάλων κακῶν 
ἄρξει. 
There may be a reference to this saying in Aristoph. Peace, 435,— 
σπένδοντες εὐχώμεσθα τὴν νῦν ἡμέραν 
Ἕλλησιν ἄρξαι πᾶσι πολλῶν κἀγαθῶν. 


ὑποτοπήσας, ὅτι ᾿Αρχίδαμος αὐτῷ ξένος ὧν ἐτύγχανε, μὴ πολλάκις ὃ 
αὐτὸς ἰδίᾳ βουλόμενος χαρίζεσθαι τοὺς ἄγρους αὑτοῦ παραλίπῃ καὶ μὴ δῃηώσῃ 
«.T.A. 

μὴ πολλάκις, lit. ‘as often happens,’ and hence ‘as is likely to 
happen.’ Compare the use of the word in Plato (e.g. Rep. iv. 
424 C), though less common in other writers, in the sense of 
‘ perchance.’ 


χωρὶς δὲ χρυσίου ἀσήμου καὶ ἀργυρίου ἔν re ἀναθήμασιν ἰδίοις καὶ 
δημοσίοις, καὶ ὅσα ἱερὰ σκεύη περί τε τὰς πομπὰς καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας, καὶ 
σκῦλα Μηδικά, καὶ εἴ τι τοιουτότροπον, οὐκ ἐλάσσονος ἦν ἢ πεντακοσίων 
ταλάντων. 

Either 1) ὅσον ἦν was intended to follow χρυσίον καὶ ἀργυρίου, but 
the construction was changed in the next clause, ὅσα ἱερὰ σκεύη. 
Or 2) the words χρυσίου ἀσήμου καὶ ἀργυρίου were intended to be 
governed by οὐκ ἔλασσον. But the transition from the genitive to 
the nominative in the following clauses has led to the substitution 
οὗ οὐκ ἐλάσσονος (genitive of price). In either case there is a 
transposition of re, ἔν τε ἀναθήμασιν ἰδίοις καὶ δημοσίοις being 
equivalent to ἐν ἀναθήμασιν ἰδίοις τε καὶ δημοσίοις. 

Or better 3)* ὅσα ἱερὰ σκεύη... σκῦλα Mndud= ἐν ἱεροῖς σκεύεσι καὶ 
ἐν σκύλοις Μηδικοῖς, answering to ἐν ἀναθήμασιν. We must then sup- 
pose the genitives χρυσίου καὶ ἀργυρίου, which should have been 
followed by οὐκ ἐλάσσον, to be forgotten in the length of the 
sentence. ἐλάσσονος agrees better with the following genitive than 
ἔλασσον (which is found only in two inferior MSS). 

This difficult passage may be converted into an easy one by the 
omission of ἦν, which is a probable correction, though without 
authority. ὑπάρχοντος must then be supplied with ἐλάσσονος from 
ὑπαρχόντων above. 


“A ’ φ 
ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν προσετίθει χρήματα οὐκ ὀλίγα, οἷς 


NOTES, BOOK II. 95 


Χρήσεσθαι αὐτούς, καὶ ἣν πάνυ ἐξεΐίργωνται πάντων, καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς θεοῦ τοῖς 18. δ. 

περικειμένοις χρυσίοις. 

τῶν ἄλλων refers to the words ὑπαρχόντων ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει just 
above. 

We know that the public treasury of Athens was in the Parthenon. 
Pericles, whose previous words refer to the treasures kept there, 
and probably to the special treasures of other temples on the 
Acropolis, now passes to the treasures of the temples not on the 
Acropolis. | 

καὶ iy... πάντων, ‘and if they were cut off from the use of every- 
thing, i.e. from the use, not merely of their accumulated treasures, 
bue of the tribute paid by the allies. Cp. note on iii. 70. 6. 

ἘΞ or a discussion of this passage, in connection with the inscrip- 
tio ss which throw light upon the history of Athenian finance, see 
Kim-«chhoff (Zur Geschichte des Athen. Staatsschatzes, p. 24, Ab- 
ham-m cil. der Berl. Acad., 1876); Greek Inscriptions in the British 
Max sseum, Newton and Hicks, Part I. p. 46. 

“ΕΓ hese inscriptions ‘fall into two classes, 1) accounts of ex- 
pe xuditure, 2) inventories of ἱερὰ χρήματα, handed on from one board 

to another’ (Newton and Hicks). Up to the Peace of Nicias no 
dirwainution but rather an increase of the ἱερὰ χρήματα seems to 
have taken place (Kirchhoff, p. 26). But before the end of the war 

many articles of value have disappeared from the inventories and 

have been replaced by others (Newton and Hicks, p. 48), and in 

OL 93.3 (406, the year of Arginusae) nearly all the treasures of the 

Pronaos of the Parthenon seem to have been applied to the 

€Xpexases of the war (Kirchhoff, p. 38.) An ἀκινάκης ἐπί[χρυσος] 
(Newton and Hicks, p. 77) may have beeri one of the σκῦλα Μηδικά 
Mentioned by Thucydides. Large sums, over 4700 talents, are 
com-cted as expended from the treasury in the years 433-427 
(Kirebhof,, p. 30, cp. Thuc. ii. 17. 19). 


Gre «ἔφαινε 8° ἔχουν τὸ ἄγαλμα τεσσαράκοντα τάλαντα σταθμὸν χρύσου 18. 5. 
ἀπέφ» 490υ. 

According to Boeckh (Staatshaush. i. p. 592) 40 talents 
of ξ 99] =at least 400 talents of silver, i.e. £96,000 ; according to 
Kirchhof, Athen. Staatssch. p. 26, who estimates the value of gold 


οό THUCYDIDES. 


. in the time of Pericles as fourteen times that of silver, they would 


amount to 560 talents of silver, i.e. £134,400. 


ὁπλίτας δὲ τρισχιλίους καὶ μυρίους εἶναι ἄνευ τῶν ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις καὶ 


ἡ. τῶν παρ᾽ ἔπαλξιν ἑξακισχιλίων καὶ μυρίων. τοσοῦτοι γὰρ ἐφύλασσον τὸ 


πρῶτον, ὁπότε οἱ πολέμιοι ἐσβάλοιεν, ἀπό τε τῶν πρεσβυτάτων καὶ τῶν 
γεωτάτων, καὶ μετοίκων ὅσοι ὁπλῖται ἦσαν. 


Cp. the complaint of Dicaeopolis, Ar. Ach. 71,— 


> A 


σφόδρα yap ἐσωζόμην ἐγὼ 
παρὰ τὴν ἔπαλξιν ἐν φορυτῷ κατακείμενος. 

A difficulty has been raised respecting the proportion which the 
number of the ‘oldest and youngest men’ bore to the rest of the 
army. The garrison troops are estimated at 16,000. From these 
we have to deduct for the metic hoplites 3000 (ii. 31 init.). The 
rest of the garrison troops, consisting of the older and younger 
men, and probably including the περίπολοι, young men between 
eighteen and twenty, though they are not specially mentioned here, 
amount to the same number as the other hoplites, namely, 13,000. 
But could the older and younger men, if they were those below and 
above the ordinary age for service with the hoplites, i.e. twenty and 
sixty, be anything like equal in number to the heavy-armed soldiers 
between these ages? Clearly this is impossible. We may therefore 
conjecture that the oldest and youngest men here mentioned, who 
constitute half the Athenian army, exclusive of the metics, must 
have been reckoned in some other way. Nor is it likely that a 
force consisting only of young men under twenty and of old men 
over sixty could have been used for any important service (such as 
the defence of Oenoé, ii. 18.). In any military state it is probable 
that an age was fixed much earlier than sixty, at which active service 
out of the country was no longer required, though the whole force 
might be employed at home or called out on extraordinary 
occasions. 

The division of the Athenian army, according to the year of the 
archons in which the men were enlisted, would facilitate such a 
distribution. (Harpocration, s.v. ἐπώνυμοι and στρατεῖαι ἐν τοῖς ἐπωνύ- 
μοις, Sch6mann, Griechische Alterthiimer, i. p. 449.) And that sixty 
was not always the limit of age is proved by Lycurg. c. Leocr. 39, 


NOTES, BOOK II. 97 


δ᾽ ἐλπίδες τῆς σωτηρίας τῷ δήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ πεντήκοντα ἔτι γεγονόσι 18.. 6. 
καθειστήκεσαν. 


τοῦ δὲ Φαληρικοῦ τείχους στάδιοι ἧσαν. 18. 7. 
_ ‘Were’ before their destruction, or, ‘ were’ to be guarded. 


ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ an’ ᾿Αθηναίων “loves ἔτι καὶ viv νομίζουσιν. 15. 4. 

The mention of the fact that the festival of Dionysus in the 
Marshes was common to the Ionians is intended to prove . its 
antiquity, and so to strengthen the argument from the site of the 
temples to the site of the older town. Cp. i.6 med. ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ 
᾿Ιώνων τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους xara τὸ ξυγγενὲς ἐπὶ πολὺ αὕτη ἡ σκευὴ κατέσχεν, 
where there is a similar mention of an old Athenian custom re- 
tained by the Ionians. 


καὶ τῇ κρήνῃ τῇ νῦν μέν, τῶν τυράννων οὕτω σκενασάντων, ᾿Ἐννεακρούνῳ 15, 5. 
καλενυμένῃ, τὸ δὲ πάλαι, φανερῶν τῶν πηγῶν οὐσῶν, Καλλιῤῥόῃ ὠνομασμένῃ, 
ἀεζσῃ τε ἐγγὺς οὔσῃ τὰ πλείστον ἄξια ἐχρῶντο, καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ 

φχχεκέου πρό τε γαμικῶν καὶ ἐς ἄλλα τῶν ἱερῶν νομίζεται τῴ ὕδατι χρῆσθαι. 

«ας εἰνῃ is a resumption οὗ τῇ κρήνῃ, ‘this fountain, I say, which was 

in the neighbourhood of the original city.’ The resumption 

em yrhasizes the words ἐγγὺς οὔσῃ, which contain the point of the 

arg aament. ‘The city grew up on the south side of the Acropolis : 

aS is proved by the fact that the sacred fountain was near this 
qu=arxrter, as well as the ancient temples.’ 

Of the demonstratives οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος, οὗτος refers to what 
hass immediately preceded, and is therefore commonly used in re- 
simmptions. But ἐκεῖνος is here more appropriate, because the | 

writer reverts to the more remote antecedent, not indeed in ex- 
pression, but in idea, that is, to the old form of the fountain as 

Opposed to the new. Cp. Xen. Cyr. vi. 1.17, ὃ δ᾽ ἴσως ἄν τινες 

ὑμῶν φοβηθεῖεν, εἰ δεήσει πόῤῥω τῆς ἑαυτῶν φρουρεῖν, μηδὲ τοῦτο ὀκνήσητε. 

ἡμεῖς μὲν γάρ, ἐπείπερ καὶ ds οἴκοθεν ἀποδημοῦμεν, φρουρήσειν ὑμῖν ἀνα- 
διχόμεθα τὰ ἐγγύτατα χωρία τῶν πολεμίων, ὑμεῖς δὲ τὰ πρόσορα ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς 
τὴς ᾿Ασσυρίας, ἐκεῖνα κτᾶσθε καὶ ἐργάζεσθε, where, in the same way, 
inthe order of fact though not of word, τὰ πρόσορα are more remote 


from the speaker than ra ἐγγύτατα τῶν πολεμίων. 
VOX... π. H 


98 THUCYDIDES. 


15. 5. Objections have been raised to the position of ré. But a) ἐκείνῃ 
te and καὶ νῦν may be intended to distinguish the ancient and the 
modern forms of the fountain. ‘Not only did they use the ancient 
fountain for great occasions, but it is still the custom to take water 
from the modern fountain at marriages and other ceremonies.’ 
And 4) in any case τέ is not really out of place. For ἐκείνῃ is 
not taken with the second clause; but the words νομέζεται τῷ ὕδατι 
τούτῳ χρῆσθαι correspond to ἐκείνῃ ἐχρῶντο, that is to say, the 
particles ré—xai connect two clauses and not two words. ἐκεύῃ 
is placed at the beginning of the sentence because it is the re- 
sumption of τῇ κρήνῃ. 

It is therefore unnecessary to adopt the correction ἐκεῖνοί re. 


16.1. τῇ τε οὖν ἐπὶ πολὺ κατὰ τὴν χώραν αὐτονόμῳ οἰκήσει μετεῖχον of 
᾿Αθηναῖοι, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ξυνῳκίσθησαν διὰ τὸ ἔθος ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς ὁμῶς οἱ 
πλείους τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ τῶν ὕστερον μέχρι τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου πανοικησίᾳ 
γενόμενοί τε καὶ οἰκήσαντες οὐ ῥᾳδίως τὰς μεταναστάσεις ἐποιοῦντο. 

The use of the dative after μετεῖχον is very singular, and seems to 
arise from a confusion between the manner of partaking (dative) 
and the thing partaken of (genitive). A genitive after μετεῖχον may 
be supplied from the words ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς... γενόμενοί x.r.A., to which 
τέ---καί point forward. ‘Thus the Athenians, both by their inde- 
pendent residence in the country which long prevailed, and from 
habit after their union, shared in a rural life.’ 

The construction of κοινωνεῖν with the dative is too rare, and 
that of νομίζειν, χρῆσθαι, with the dative too remote, to justify the 
explanation of οἰκήσει μετεῖχον on these analogies. 


17. 1. ἐπειδή τε ἀφίκοντο ἐς τὸ ἄστυ, ὀλίγοις μέν τισιν ὑπῆρχον οἰκήσεις καὶ 
παρὰ φίλων τινὰς ἣ οἰκείων καταφυγή᾽ οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ τά τε ἔρημα τῆς πόλεως 
ᾧκησαν καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰ ἡρῷα πάντα κ.τ.λ. 

Cp. Ar. Knights, 792, where the Sausage-seller reproaches Cleon 
with his treatment of the Athenian people,— 
Kai πῶς σὺ φιλεῖς, ὃς τοῦτον ὁρῶν οἰκοῦντ᾽ ἐν ταῖς φιδάκναισι 
καὶ γυπαρίοις καὶ πυργιδίοις ἔτος ὄγδοον οὐκ ἐλεαίρεις, 
ἀλλὰ καθείρξας αὐτὸν βλίττεις" 
where it may be observed that the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war is reckoned from the year 432. 


NOTES, BOOK II. 99 


τάς τε οὖν προσβολὰς εὐτρεπίζοντο καὶ ἄλλως ἐνδιέτριψαν χρόνον περὶ 18. 2. 
ἄλλως has been translated ‘to no purpose.’ But the two clauses, 
τάς re οὖν x.r.., καὶ ἄλλως «.7.X., are then too disparate. The sense 
‘in other ways’ is more suitable to ré—xai, which connect ἄλλως 
closely with ras προσβολάς. 
καὶ τροπήν τινα τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἱππέων περὶ τοὺς ‘Peitous καλουμένους 19. 2. 
ἐποιήσαντο. 
Cp. Pausanias, i. 38. 1, οἱ δὲ “Petros καλούμενοι ῥεῦμα μόνον παρέχονται 
πεοταμῶν᾽ ἐπεὶ τό γε ὕδωρ θάλασσά ἐστί σφισι' πείθοιτο δὲ dy τις καὶ 
ας ἀπὸ τοῦ Χαλκιδέων Εὐρίπου ῥέουσιν ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς ἐς θάλασσαν κοιλοτέραν 
«ἐμπίπτοντες. 


ἅμα δὲ καὶ οἱ ᾿Αχαρνῆς μέγα μέρος ὄντες τῆς πόλεως (τρισχίλιοι γὰρ 20. 4. 
«ὁπλῖται ἐγένοντο) οὐ περιόψεσθαι ἐδόκουν τὰ σφέτερα διαφθαρέντα, ἀλλ᾽ 
«ὁρμήσειν καὶ τοὺς πάντας ἐς μάχην. 

Miller-Striibing (Aristophanes und die Hist. Kritik, Excurs. to 
p. 432) would read 300 (ΤΊ for 3000 (I), denying that so large 
a proportion of the Athenian army could have been furnished by 
one of the 174 Attic demes. But a) the demes may not have been ᾿ 
at all uniform in size and population; δ) the Acharnians are ex- 
pressly described by Thucydides as μέγα μέρος ὄντες τῆς πόλεως, 
words which could not possibly be applied to a town furnishing 
only 300 heavy armed soldiers out of 29,000 (who are all heavy 
armed, as is clear from the words of Thucydides ii 13. 6, see note, 
notwithstanding the difficulties raised by Miller-Stritbing), not 
much more than a hundredth part of the whole. And c) the pro- 
posed emendation is equally inconsistent with the importance 
ascribed to the Acharnians in the Acharnae of Aristophanes. Cp. 
also Pind. Nem. ii. 16,— 

᾿Αχάρναι δὲ παλαίφατοι 


εὐάνορες. 


4 


᾿Αθηναῖοι δέ, μέχρι μὲν οὗ περὶ ᾿Ελευσῖνα καὶ τὸ Θριάσιον πεδίον ὁ Ql. 1. 
στρατὸς ἦν, καί τινα ἐλπίδα εἶχον ἐς τὸ ἐγγυτέρω αὐτοὺς μὴ προϊέναι, μεμ- 
"μένοι καὶ Πλειστοάνακτα τὸν Παυσανίου Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλέα κ.τ.λ. 
καί τινα ἐλπίδα εἶχον, either 1)* καὶ... εἶχον is the apodosis of 
H 2 


100 THUCYDIDES. 


21. t.the sentence: ‘while the Peloponnesians remained at a distance, 
so long the Athenians had some hope.’ Or 2) the apodosis is 
lost in the long sentence which follows. 

In the latter part of the chapter the style changes, and instead of 
long periods we have a number of short hurried sentences, expres- 
sive of the various impulses by which the city was agitated. 


ὯΔ. 2. ἱππέας μέντοι ἐξέπεμπεν ἀεὶ τοῦ μὴ προδρόμους ἀπὸ τῆς στρατιᾶς ἐσπίπ- 
τοντας ἐς τοὺς ἀγροὺς τοὺς ἐγγὺς τῆς πόλεως κακουργεῖν. καὶ ἱππομαχία τις 
ἐνεγένετο βραχεῖα ἐν Φρυγίοις x.1.). 

ἐν- in éveyevero=‘meanwhile:’ ‘in the course of sending out 
these detachments there occurred a skirmish.’ 


ΔΆ. 3. ἡ δὲ βοήθεια αὕτη τῶν Θεσσαλῶν κατὰ τὸ παλαιὸν ξυμμαχικὸν ἐγένετο 
τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις. 
ΤΕ word παλαιόν shows that the reference is not only to the 
comparatively recent alliance with Thessaly, i. 102 fin., 107 fin., 
but to the old friendship mentioned in iv. 78 med. τοῖς re ᾿Αθηναίοις 


dei ποτε τὸ πλῆθος τῶν Θεσσαλῶν εὔνουν ὑπῆρχεν. 


48. 3. παριόντες δὲ ᾿Ωρωπόν, τὴν γῆν τὴν Πειραϊκὴν καλουμένην, ἣν νέμονται 
᾿Ωρώπιοι ᾿Αθηναίων ὑπήκοοι, ἐδήωσαν. 

All the MSS. read τὴν Πειραϊκήν (see note on the translation). 
But as the expression occurs nowhere else, and the form Πειραϊκήν 
is strange, some editors read τὴν Γραϊκήν. Steph. Byz. s.v. Τάναγρα 
informs us that there was a place called Graea upon the coast, 
belonging to Oropus. He further says that different accounts 
were given of the name; Aristotle in particular identifying Graea 
with Oropus. Graea also occurs in an inscription as the name of 
an Attic deme, belonging to the tribe Pandionis (see Grote, Part IT. 
ch. xlviil). 


24.2. τριήρεις re per αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν ἐξαιρέτους ἐποιήσαντο κατὰ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν 
ἕκαστον τὰς βελτίστας. 
Not of course the same hundred, which would soon have decayed; 
but a hundred every year, which was changed. 


25. 3. καὶ προσβοηθήσαντας τῶν ἐκ τῆς κοίλης Ἤλιδος τριακοσίους λογάδας καὶ 
τῶν αὐτόθεν ἔκ τῆς περιοικίδος ᾿Ηλείων μάχῃ ἐκράτησαν. 


NOTES, BOOK II. ΙΟῚ 


The words τριακοσίους λογάδας apply only to’ τῶν ἐκ τῆς κοίλης 25. 3. 
Ἤλιδος, With τῶν αὐτόθεν supply προσβοηθήσαντάς (τινα). The 
Elean perioeci in the neighbourhood would come indiscriminately 
at once, while the chosen troops would naturally be the first to 
arrive from a distance. 


ἐπικαλέσαντες oy ἥκιστα τοῦ πολέμου σφίσιν αἰτίους εἶναι. 27. 1. 
οὐχ ἥκιστα is to be taken with αἰτίους εἶναι, not with ἐπικαλέσαντες. 
Cp. i. 67 med. Αἰγινῆταί re φανερῶς μὲν οὐ πρεσβευόμενοι δεδιότες τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους, κρύφα δὲ οὐχ ἥκιστα μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐνῆγον τὸν πόλεμον. 


νουμηνίᾳ κατὰ σελήνην. 48. 
I.e. the first day of the lunar month, distinguished from the first 

day of the civil month, which did not always coincide with it. For 

the Attic months, though lunar, had to be adapted to a solar year. 


ὁ δὲ Thpns οὗτος ὁ τοῦ Σιτάλκον πατὴρ πρῶτος ᾿Οδρύσαις τὴν μεγάλην 29. 2. 
βασιλείαν ἐπὶ πλεῖον τῆς ἄλλης Θράκης ἐποίησε' πολὺ γὰρ μέρος καὶ 
αὐτόνομόν ἐστι Θρᾳκῶν. 

ἐπὶ πλεῖον τῆς ἄλλης Θράκης. Not 1) ‘ was the first to establish the 
great kingdom of the Odrysae on a larger scale than the rest of | 
Thrace,’ for this would imply that there were several other kingdoms 
in Thrace, not indeed as great as the kingdom of the Odrysae, but 
comparable to it. The meaning is 2)* ‘he extended the kingdom 
of the Odrysae over a great part of Thrace (ἐπὶ πλεῖον, not ἐπὶ τὸ 
πλεῖον), but not over the whole, for there are numerous tribes which 
remain independent.’ 


Τηρεῖ δὲ τῷ Πρόκνην τὴν Πανδίονος an’ ᾿Αθηνῶν σχόντι γυναῖκα προσήκει 29. 3. 
ὁ Τήρης οὗτος οὐδέν κιτ.λ. 
Cp. Aristoph. Birds, 366,— 
ἘΠΟΥ͂. εἰπέ μοι ri μέλλετ᾽, ὦ πάντων κάκιστα θηρίων, 
ἀπολέσαι, παθόντες οὐδέν, ἄνδρε, καὶ διασπάσαι 


τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικὸς ὄντε ξυγγενῆ καὶ φυλέτα; 


Τήρης δὲ οὔτε τὸ αὐτὸ ὄνομα ἔχων, βασιλεύς τε πρῶτος ἐν κράτει ᾿Οδρυσῶν 3θ. 3. 
ἐγένετο. 

For similar transitions from the participle to the finite verb cp. 
note on i. 9. 3. § 5. 


29. 5. 


30. 1. 


36. 


102 THUCYDIDES. 


ἐλθὼν δὲ ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ὁ Νυμφόδωρος τήν τε τοῦ Σιτάλκου ξυμμαχίαν 
ἐποίησε καὶ Σάδοκον τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αθηναῖον, τόν τε ἐπὶ Θράκης πόλεμον 
ὑπεδέχετο καταλύσειν" πείσειν γὰρ Σιτάλκην πέμψειν στρατιὰν Θρᾳκίαν 
᾿Αθηναίοις ἱππέων τε καὶ πελταστῶν. 
A comic version of the same events is given by Aristophanes, 
Ach. 141 foll.,— 
CEQ. τοῦτον μετὰ Σιτάλκους ἔπινον τὸν χρόνον" 
καὶ δῆτα φιλαθήναιος ἦν ὑπερφυῶς, 
ὑμῶν τ᾽ ἐραστὴς ἦν ἀληθής, ὥστε καὶ 
ἐν τοῖσι τοίχοις ἔγραφ᾽, ᾿Αθηναῖοι καλοί. 
ὁ δ᾽ υἱός, ὃν ᾿Αθηναῖον ἐπεποιήμεθα, 
ἤρα φαγεῖν ἀλλᾶντας ἐξ ᾿Απατουρίων, 
καὶ τὸν πατέρ᾽ ἠντιβόλει βοηθεῖν τῇ πάτρᾳ᾽ 
ὁ δ᾽ ὥμοσε σπένδων βοηθήσειν, ἔχων 
στρατιὰν τοσαύτην ὥστ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίους ἐρεῖν, 
ὅσον τὸ χρῆμα παρνόπων προσέρχεται. 
ΔΙ. κάκιστ᾽ ἀπολοίμην, εἴ τι τούτων πείθομαι 


ὧν εἶπας ἐνταυθὶ σύ, πλὴν τῶν παρνόπων. 


οἱ δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἑκατὸν ναυσὶν ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἔτι ὄντες περὶ Πελοπόννησον Σόλλιόν 
τε Κορινθίων πόλισμα αἱροῦσι καὶ παραδιδόασι Παλαιρεῦσιν ᾿Ακαρνάνων 
μόνοις τὴν γῆν καὶ πόλιν νέμεσθαι. 

Contrast iv. 49 fin. When δὴ Acarnanian and Athenian force had 
taken Anactorium, ἐκπέμψαντες Κορινθίους αὐτοὶ ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες οἰκήτορες 
ἀπὸ πάντων ἔσχον τὸ χωρίον. * ᾿ 


ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἀρκοῦν ἂν ἐδόκει εἶναι ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργῳ γενομένων ἔργῳ καὶ 
δηλοῦσθαι τὰς τιμάς, οἷα καὶ νῦν περὶ τὸν τάφον τόνδε δημοσίᾳ παρασκενα- 
σθέντα ὁρᾶτε, καὶ μὴ ἐν ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ πολλῶν ἀρετὰς κινδυνεύεσθαι εὖ τε καὶ 
χεῖρον εἰπόντι πιστευθῆναι. 

The construction of these words is uncertain. 1) πιστευθῆναι may 
be dependent on κινδυνεύεσθαι, ‘that the virtues of many should run 
the risk of being believed (or not), as one man speaks well or ill.’ 

But it is simpler 2) to regard the clause εὖ re... πιστευθῆναι as an 
epexegesis of κινδυνεύεσθαι, indicating the matter in which the risk 
consists, ‘that the virtues of many should be imperilled on a single 
man touching their being believed in proportion as he speaks well 
or ill.’ 


NOTES, BOOK II. 103 


It is possible also, 3) instead of supplying ras ἀρετάς as the 3B. r. 
subject of πιστευθῆναι, to take the verb as impersonal, ‘ that 
credence should be given.’ 

elxdvre 1) may be dat. after πιστευθῆναι, cp. i. 20 init. τὰ μὲν οὖν 
παλαιὰ τοιαῦτα εὗρον, χαλεπὰ ὄντα παντὶ ἑξῆς τεκμηρίῳ πιστεῦσαι, OF 
2) may agree with ἐν évi ἀνδρί. 

It may be remarked a) that, although such orations were fre- 
quently repeated in the course of the war (ii. 34 fin.), this is the 
only one which Thucydides has thought it worth while to preserve ; 
and 4) that, although the occasion may appear trivial, for the number 
of persons killed was probably very small, it is likely that in this 
single speech more speeches of Pericles than one may be summed 
up. c¢) The funeral oration is the panegyric over all who fell in 
the war, and is intended for the reader rather than for the hearer. 

For other funeral speeches see a fragment of Gorgias, the 
Menexenus, attributed by Plato or his imitator to Aspasia, and 
the ἐπιτάφιοι λόγοι ascribed to Lysias and Demosthenes. The three 
last of these differ from the great oration of Pericles a) in their 
lengthy treatment of legendary and other history; 4) in their 
rhetorical and exaggerated common-places ; 4) in their want of 
philosophical and political insight. There survives far more of 
the spirit of Thucydides in the remarkable though incomplete 
funeral oration of Hyperides. For the funeral oration of Gorgias 
see Dr. Thomson, Gorgias, App., and for those of Lysias and 
Hyperides see Mr. Jebb, Attic Orators. There is a fine fragment 
of another funeral speech of Pericles preserved by Plutarch, Pericles 
8, ὁ δὲ Στησίμβροτός φησιν, ὅτι τοὺς ἐν Σάμῳ τεθνηκότας ἐγκωμιάζων ἐπὶ 
τοῦ βήματος ἀθανάτους ἔλεγε γεγονέναι καθάπερ τοὺς θεούς. οὐ γὰρ ἐκείνους 
αὐτοὺς ὁρῶμεν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τιμαῖς, ἃς ἔχουσι, καὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, ἃ παρέχουσιν, 
ἀθανάτους εἶναι τεκμαιρόμεθα. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος 
ἀποθανοῦσιν. 


χαλεπὸν γὰρ τὸ μετρίως εἰπεῖν, ἐν ᾧ μόλις καὶ ἡ δόκησις τῆς ἀληθείας 38, x. 
βεβαιοῦται. ὅ τε γὰρ ξυνειδὼς καὶ εὔνους ἀκροατὴς τάχ᾽ ay τι ἐνδεεστέρως 
πρὸς & βούλεταί τε καὶ ἐπίσταται νομίσειε δηλοῦσθαι, ὅ τε ἄπειρος ἔστιν ἃ 
καὶ πλεονάζεσθαι διὰ φθόνον, εἴ τι ὑπὲρ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἀκούοι. 

1)* ‘It is difficult to avoid saying too little or too much, and if 


35. 


- I. 


2. 


104 THUCYDIDES. 


you do avoid it (ἐν ᾧ), you will hardly be thought to be speaking 
the truth. For the friend will think that you are saying too little, 
and the enemy that you are saying too much.’ μόλις answers to 
χαλεπόν. καί after ἐν ᾧ emphasizes the whole clause, and represents 
the further step in the argument— it is difficult to observe modera- 
tion, and there is a further difficulty, that you are not believed 
if you do.’ 

Or 2) ‘It is difficult to say neither too little nor too much: and 
herein lies also the difficulty of creating the impression of truthful- 
ness.’ καί, which is to be taken with ἡ δόκησις τῆς ἀληθείας Be- 
Bawira, imperfectly contrasts the objective with the subjective— 
the difficulty felt by the hearer with that felt by the speaker, or the 
effect on the mind of the hearer with the words spoken. 

Or 3) ἐν ᾧ may mean ‘in a case where.’ ‘It is difficult to speak 
with exact propriety in a case where it is so difficult to produce 
the impression of truth.’ καί expresses emphatically the logical 
connection between the two clauses, and is better given in English 
by inverting them. ‘For wherc it is hard to produce the impres- 
sion of truth, there too it is difficult to speak with exact propriety.’ 
(Cp. note on iv. 62. 4.) 

According to 1) the words=‘ it is difficult, and there is a further 
difficulty.’ ἐν o=év τῷ μετρίως εἰπεῖν. 

According to 2) ‘it is difficult, and the difficulty lies in this.’ ἐν ᾧ 
=v τῷ χαλεπὸν εἶναι μετρίως εἰπεῖν. 

According to 3) ‘it is difficult too, in a case in which it is hard.’ 
ἐν ᾧτε ἐν τούτῳ ἐν ᾧ. 

According to any of these explanations, καί may also be joined 
with ἡ δόκησις, in the sense of ‘even.’ Either 1) ‘it is hard to give 
even the impression of truth,’ in other words, ‘even the simplest 
condition of oratory is not fulfilled;’ or 2) ‘you do not produce 
even the appearance, to say nothing of the conviction, of truth.’ 


μέχρι yap τοῦδε ἀνεκτοὶ of ἔπαινοί εἰσι περὶ ἑτέρων λεγόμενοι, ἐς ὅσον ἂν 
καὶ αὐτὸς ἕκαστος οἴηται ἱκανὸς εἶναι δρᾶσαί τι ὧν ἤκουσε. τῷ δ' ὑπερ- 
βάλλοντι αὐτῶν φθονοῦντες ἤδη καὶ ἀπιστοῦσιν. 

Such a remark, however slight may be the foundation for it, is 
not unnatural, when an orator is dwelling on the difficulties of the 


NOTES, BOOK Il. 105 


task before him. Nor would it be ungrateful to the audience (see 86. 2. 
Col. Mure, vol. v. p. 170), who would be willing enough to believe 

at such a time that they could not do justice to the dead, and 
might even reproach themselves with a want of generosity towards 

them. 


δίκαιον yap αὐτοῖς καὶ πρέπον δὲ dua ἐν τῷ τοιῷδε τὴν τιμὴν ταύτην τῆς BB. I. 
μνήμης δίδοσθαι. 

For such expressions, which are frequent in Thucydides, see 
note on i. 9. 3. 


τὴν yap χώραν ἀεὶ of αὐτοὶ οἰκοῦντες διαδοχῇ τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων μέχρι 36. 1. 
τοῦδε ἔλευθέραν δι’ ἀρετὴν παρέδοσαν. 

διαδοχῇ τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων may be taken either with ἀεὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ 
οἰκοῦντες OF with παρέδοσαν, or with both. | 

It is doubtful whether διαδοχῇ is in sense neuter, ‘ by a succession 
of posterity,’ i.e. ‘by successive generations;’ or active, equivalent 
to τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων διαδεχομένων (τὴν χώραν). 


τὰ δὲ πλείω αὐτῆς αὐτοὶ ἡμεῖς οἵδε, οἱ νῦν ἔτι ὄντες μάλιστα ἐν τῇ καθε- 3B. 3. 
στηκυίᾳ ἡλικίᾳ, ἐπηυξήσαμεν. 

τὰ δὲ πλείω, either 1)* the greater part of our power; or 2) that 
which goes beyond what we have received. 

ἐπηυξήσαμεν refers to the improvement and consolidation, not to 
the extension, of the Athenian empire, of which the limits, as 
Thucydides implies in the previous sentence (κτησάμενοι yap πρὸς ois 
ἐδέξαντο ὅσην ἔχομεν ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἀπόνως ἡμῖν τοῖς νῦν προσκατέλιπον), had 
been fixed in the preceding generation. Cp. i. 118 init. ταῦτα δὲ 
ξύμπαντα... ἐγένετο ἐν ἔτεσι πεντήκοντα μάλιστα μεταξὺ τῆς Ξέρξον ἀναχω- 
ρήσεως καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμον᾽ ἐν οἷς ᾿Αθηναῖοι τήν τε ἀρχὴν 
ἐγκρατεστέραν κατεστήσαντο, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐπὶ μέγα ἐχώρησαν δυνάμεως. 


ἀπὸ δὲ οἵας τε ἐπιτηδεύσεως ἤλθομεν Ew αὐτά, καὶ μεθ᾽ οἵας πολιτείας 88. 4. 
καὶ τρύπων ἐξ οἵων μεγάλα ἐγένετο x.7.X. 
If ἦλθον, the reading of many good MSS. (not ἤλθομεν), be adopted, 
it must be referred to of πατέρες, and the distinction implied between 
the work of the preceding and that of the present generation is the 
same as that drawn in i. 89 init. of yap ᾿Αθηναῖοι τρόπῳ τοιῷδε ἦλθον 
ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα, ἐν οἷς ηὐξήθησαν. 


87. 1. 


37. 2. 


39. 


2. 


106 THUCYDIDES. 


καὶ ὄνομα μὲν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐς ὀλίγους ἀλλ᾽ ἐς πλείονας οἰκεῖν δημοκρατία 
κέκληται, μέτεστι δὲ κατὰ μὲν τοὺς νόμους πρὸς τὰ ἴδια διάφορα πᾶσι τὸ 
ἴσον, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀξίωσιν, ὡς ἕκαστος ev τῳ εὐδοκιμεῖ, οὐκ ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ 
πλεῖον ἐς τὰ κοινὰ ἣ ἀπὸ ἀρετῆς προτιμᾶται. 

ἐς ὀλίγους... οἰκεῖν ΞΞ διοικεῖσθαι ὥστε ὀλίγους εἶναι τοὺς διοικοῦντας αὐτήν: 
cp. viii. 53 fin. ἐς ὀλίγους μᾶλλον τὰς ἀρχὰς ποιήσομεν, where the 
context clearly shows that ἐς ὀλίγους cannot mean, as might be 
supposed, ‘for the advantage of a minority.’ 

μέτεστι δέ κιτὰλ. ‘though we bear the name of democracy, this 
name is an inadequate description of the Athenian commonwealth. 
For before the law all men (including the ὀλίγοι) are equal, while at 
the same time there is an aristocracy of merit at the service of the 
state.’ . 

ἀπὸ μέρους, 1)* ‘ because of the part of the state to which he 
belongs,’ i.e. because he belongs to a privileged class. Cp. vi. 
39 init. ἐγὼ δέ φημι πρῶτα μὲν δῆμον ξύμπαν ὠνομάσθαι, ὀλιγαρχίαν δὲ 
μέρος, where, as in this passage, the word μέρος is used invidiously. 
Or, more simply, 2) οὐκ ἀπὸ μέρους, ‘not partially,’ or ‘in a spirit 
of partiality.’ But thus the opposition between ἀπὸ μέρους and ἀπὸ 
ἀρετῆς becomes merely a grammatical form. 


οὐδὲ ἀζημίους μὲν λυπηρὰς δὲ TH ὄψει ἀχθηδόνας προστιθέμενοι. 

τῇ ὄψει ἰ8 best taken as dative after προστιθέμενοι. ἀχθηδών commonly 
means a burden or offence; here ‘ looks expressive of discontent 
or annoyance.’ 

προστιθέμενοι, lit. ‘adding to our own looks,’ i.e. wearing on our 
faces. 


οὔτε yap Λακεδαιμόνιοι καθ᾽ ἑκάστους, μετὰ πάντων δὲ ἐς τὴν γὴν 
ἡμῶν στρατεύουσιν. 

1)* ‘For the Lacedaemonians do not come singly, but with their 
whole confederacy into our country ; or 2) taking the Lacedae- 
monians to represent the whole Peloponnesian confederacy of 
which καθ᾽ ἑκάστους describes the parts: (cp. ii. 12. med. Λακεδαιμονίων 
ἐξεστρατευμένων.) ‘For the Peloponnesians do not come with the 
force of one of their states only, etc.’ The former agrees better 
with the words pera πάντων ; the latter with καθ᾽ ἑκάστου. Poppo 


NOTES, BOOK 1]. 107 


Would change the text without MS. authority into καθ᾽ ἑαυτούς. But 89. 2. 
the opposition of καθ' ἑαυτούς to μετὰ πάντων is far less idiomatic 
and familiar than the reading of the MSS. 


καίτοι εἰ ῥᾳθυμίᾳ μᾶλλον ἣ πόνων μελέτῃ, καὶ μὴ μετὰ νόμων τὸ πλεῖον ἣ 89. 4. 
Τρόπων ἀνδρίας ἐθέλοιμεν κινδυνεύειν, περιγίγνεται ἡμῖν τοῖς τε μέλλουσιν 
ἀλγεενοῖς μὴ προκάμνειν, καὶ ἐς αὐτὰ ἐλθοῦσι μὴ ἀτολμοτέρους τῶν ἀεὶ 
μοχιΘούντων φαίνεσθαι, καὶ ἔν τε τούτοις τὴν πόλιν ἀξίαν εἶναι θαυμάζεσθαι 40. 1. 
καὶ En ἐν ἄλλοις. 
scziro COnveys no opposition to the preceding words, but only 
repeats the argument and introduces the conclusion. Cp. iii. 39. 2 
ancl note. It refers back to the sentence καὶ ἐν ταῖς παιδείαις οἱ μέν 
“τ Ἂς. with a slighter reference to the section beginning τεκμήριον δέ" 
Ore γάρκιτλ. ‘But surely if, enjoying this entire freedom of life, 
Wwe divided are a match for our enemies united, it is a clear gain 
to was that we do not become like Sparta a merely military city, and 
ha © time to attain greatness of another sort’ (ἐν ἄλλοις, beginning 
of <h. 40). Such is the general drift of the passage. 
ww @ikoper is the reading of all but a few MSS., not ἐθέλομεν. The 
bye» othesis, which is also the actual fact, is presented with a sort of 
Cr eek irony, in ἃ more subjective and remote form, ‘if it be a 
tha. Ἂπ Ἢρ conceivable that we prefer.’ Cp. note on i. 120. 3. 


<Burocadoiperv γὰρ per’ εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνευ μαλακίας. 40. 1. 
@acr εὐτελείας, ‘with economy,’ which is a mark of simplicity 

atm <j good taste. The meaning ‘simplicity’ is inferred rather than 

© woressed in the word εὐτέλεια. 


“wrourp τε ἔργου μᾶλλον καιρῷ ἢ λόγου κόμπῳ χρώμεθα, καὶ τὸ πένεσθαι 40. τ. 
οὔ» ὁμολογεῖν τινὶ αἰσχρόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ διαφεύγειν ἔργῳ αἴσχιον. 
1)* ἔργου καιρῷ and λόγον κόμπῳ, if grammatically analysed, are in 
AA €¥erent constructions (cp. note on i. 71. 1), ‘in the season of 
*#< tion,’ and ‘as a boast of words,’ κόμπῳ being simply in appo- 
SA tion with πλούτῳ. 
Or 2) ἔργου καίρῳ may mean ‘as an opportunity for action.’ 
αἴσχιον, i.e. αἰσχρὸν μᾶλλον, not ‘ more disgraceful than poverty,’ 
Which the speaker denies to be a disgrace, but ‘ disgraceful rather 


40. 1. 


40. 2. 


40. 3- 


40. 4. 


108 THUCYDIDES. 


than poverty.’ Fora similar resolution of the comparative cp. iii. 
63 init. ὡς δὲ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλόν re ἡδικήκατε τοὺς Ἕλληνας καὶ ἀξ ί ἐστε 
πάσης ζημίας, πειρασόμεθα ἀποφαίνειν. ἵν. 6] med. καὶ οὐ τοῖς ἄρχειν 
βουλομένοις μέμφομαι ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὑπακούειν ἑτοιμοτέροις οὖσιν. viii. 27 
med. οὐ γὰρ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι ᾿Αθηναίους ναυτικῷ μετὰ καιροῦ ὑποχωρῆσαι, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ ὁτουοῦν τρόπον αἴσχιον ξυμβήσεσθαι ἣν ἡσσηθῶσιν. 


μόνοι γὰρ τόν τε μηδὲν τῶνδε μετέχοντα οὐκ ἀπράγμονα ἀλλ᾽ ἀχρεῖον 
νομίζομεν. 

Compare Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France: 
‘I am sure that the principles predominant in France extend to 
many persons and descriptions of persons in all countries, who 
think their innoxious indolence their security. This kind of inno- 
cence in proprietors may be argued into inutility, and inutility into 
an unfitness for their estates.’ 


καὶ αὐτοὶ Tou κρίνομέν ye ἣ ἐνθυμούμεθα ὀρθῶς τὰ πράγματα. 

As elsewhere, γέ emphasizes the former of the two alternatives. 

Compare vi. 38 init. obs ἐγὼ οὐ νῦν πρῶτον ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ ἐπίσταμαι Hroe 
λόγοις γε τοιοῖσδε καὶ ἔτι τούτων κακουργοτέροις ἢ ἔργοις βουλομένους, 
καταπλήξαντας τὸ ὑμέτερον πλῆθος, αὐτοὺς τῆς πόλεως ἄρχειν. Xen. Cyr. 
iv. 5. 22, ἡμεῖς τε, ὦ Πέρσαι, ἐπεὶ προσδεχόμεθα πολεμίους ἤτοι μαχομένους 
γε ἢ πεισομένους παρέσεσθαι, ταχθῶμεν ὡς κάλλιστα. 


διαφερόντως γὰρ δὴ καὶ τόδε ἔχομεν, ὥστε τολμᾶν τε οἱ αὐτοὶ μάλιστα, 
καὶ περὶ ὧν ἐπιχειρήσομεν ἐκλογίζεσθαι, ὃ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀμαθία μὲν θράσος, 
λογισμὸς δὲ ὄκνον φέρει. 

ὅ, scilicet τὸ ἐκλογίζεσθαι, was originally intended for the nom. to 
φέρει, but the clause has been expanded into an antithesis which 
breaks up the grammatical construction. 


Φ 


βεβαιότερος δὲ ὁ δράσας τὴν χάριν, ὥστε ὀφειλομένην δι᾿ εὐνοίας ᾧ 
δέδωκε σώζειν. 

ὥστε here expresses purpose as well as result; ‘his object being 
to keep alive the memory of the kindness which he has done.’ 
δι᾽ εὐνοίας is best taken with σώζειν, the antecedent to ᾧ δέδωκε being 
ἐκείνῳ, OF εἰς ἐκεῖνον, Or the objective genitive ἐκείνου following εὐνοίας. 

Contrast Aristot. N. E. ix. 7. 2, of εὖ πεποιηκότες φιλοῦσι καὶ 


NOTES, BOOK If. 10g 


φ 


ἀγαπῶσι τοὺς εὖ πεπονθότας κἂν μηδὲν ὦσι χρήσιμοι, μηδ᾽ εἰ ὕστερον 40. 4. 


γένοιντ᾽ ἄν. 

πανταχοῦ δὲ μνημεῖα κακῶν τε κἀγαθῶν ἀΐδια ξυγκατοικίσαντες. Al. 4. 

κακῶν τε κἀγαθῶν, lit. ‘of the harm and of the good which we have 
done.’ For κακῶν cp. supra ὃ 3, ὑφ᾽ οἵων κακοπαθεῖ. 

fvyxaroxicavres, either 1) ‘ planting together,’ i.e. as the act of 
a whole people, or 2) ‘ planting compactly or firmly ;’ compare the 
use Of σύν in the verbs συγκαθίημι, συγκατασκευάζω, συλλαμβάνω, ovy- 
γράφω, συγκλείω, etc. where it adds strength to the meaning of a 
word already denoting a complex action; or 3), ‘ establishing 
together with this,’ i. e. ‘ together with our empire,’ which has been 
described in the preceding sentence. 


καὶ εἴρηται αὐτῆς τὰ μέγιστα' ἃ γὰρ τὴν πόλιν ὕμνησα, αἱ τῶνδε καὶ 42. 2. 
τῶν τοιῶνδε ἀρεταὶ ἐκόσμησαν. 

ἃ γὰρ τὴν πόλιν ὕμνησα κιτιλ. 1) Supply τούτοις with ἐκόσμησαν, 
scil. τὴν πόλιν. Or 2)" & γάρ, --- ταῦτα γὰρ ἅ, is an accusativus pendens. 
The words that follow, αἱ τῶνδε κιτιλ., really convey the sense 
τούτους ὕμνησα, being a condensed expression for ὕμνησα ras τῶνδε 
καὶ τῶν τοιῶνδε ἀρετάς, ai ἐκόσμησαν αὐτήν, ‘When I praised the city 
I was really praising these men, for their virtues were her virtues.’ 
Compare Hyper. Epitaph. col. 7. 15, συμβαίνει τὸν Λεωσθένους ἔπαινον 


ἐπὶ ταῖς μάχαις ἐγκώμιον καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν εἶναι. 


δοκεῖ δέ μοι δηλοῦν ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν πρώτη τε μηνύουσα καὶ τελευταία 42. 2. 
βεβαιοῦσα ἡ νῦν τῶνδε καταστροφή. 

ἀνδρὸς ἀρετήν has been translated ‘manly worth;’ under the idea 
that the rendering ‘a man’s worth’ required the article before one 
or both substantives. But the words are here used in an abstract 
sense, not ‘the virtue of a man,’ but ‘virtue ina man.’ Although 
the transition from the general ἀνδρὸς ἀρετήν to the particular ἡ νῦν 
τῶνδε καταστροφή is Somewhat awkward, the meaning thus given to 
ἀνδρὸς ἀρετήν is better Greek, and the whole reflection is of a 
finer cast. 

1) τέ and καί in this sentence are not perfectly accurate, because 
the two clauses are not coextensive, the first referring only to some, 


42. 3. 


42. 4. 


42. 4. 


110 THUCYDIDES. 


the second to all, who had fallen. The words ‘ both first indicating 
and finally confirming it,’ are equivalent to ‘it may be in some 
cases the first indication, but is in all the final seal.’ πρώτη re 
μηνύουσα is further explained by τοῖς τἄλλα χείροσι. 

The words have been translated, not so well, 2) ‘both when it 
first indicates and when it finally confirms,’ i. e.‘in some cases it is 
the first indication, and in others the final seal.’ 

But it may be objected a) that the sense is interrupted, for 
then τοῖς τἄλλα χείροσι is connected only with πρώτη μηνύουσα, not 
also with τελευταία βεβαιοῦσα. And ὁ) that τέ, καί more naturally 
connect two aspects of the same action than two actions distributed 
among different classes of persons. 


καὶ yap τοῖς τἄλλα χείροσι δίκαιον τὴν ἐς τοὺς πολέμους ὑπὲρ τῆς 
πατρίδος ἀνδραγαθίαν προτίθεσθαι: ἀγαθῷ γὰρ κακὸν ἀφανίσαντες κοινῶς 
μᾶλλον ὠφέλησαν ἣ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἔβλαψαν. 

προτίθεσθαι may be middle or passive. In either case the sense 
is the same, ‘ they may justly put it forward as a plea,’ or ‘the plea 
may justly be put forward for them.’ The other explanation, ‘ it 
is just that they should show bravery,’ gives a false sentiment. 
For then the dead would be spoken of as having done no more 
than they were bound to do, whereas the argument is that by 
a work of supererogation they have cancelled their faults. 


τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐναντίων τιμωρίαν ποθεινοτέραν αὐτῶν λαβόντες καὶ κινδύνων 
ἅμα τόνδε κάλλιστον νομίσαντες ἐβουλήθησαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοὺς μὲν τιμωρεῖ- 
σθαι τῶν δὲ ἐφίεσθαι. 

μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, SCil. τοῦ κινδύνου τῶν δὲ ἐφίεσθαι is subordinate to τοὺς 
μὲν τιμωρεῖσθαι. ‘They wished to desire these things when they had 
already avenged themselves on their enemies, and not till then.’ 


ἐλπίδι μὲν τὸ ἀφανὲς τοῦ κατορθώσειν ἐπιτρέψαντες, ἔργῳ δὲ περὶ τοῦ 
ἤδη ὁρωμένον σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἀξιοῦντες πεποιθέναι" καὶ ἐν αὐτῴ τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι 
καὶ παθεῖν μᾶλλον ἡγησάμενοι ἣ τὸ ἐνδόντες σώζεσθαι, τὸ μὲν αἰσχρὸν τοῦ 
λόγου ἔφυγον, τὸ δ᾽ ἔργον τῷ σώματι ὑπέμειναν, καὶ δι᾿ ἐλαχίστου καιροῦ 
τύχης ἅμα ἀκμῇ τῆς δόξης μᾶλλον ἣ τοῦ δέους ἀπηλλάγησαν. 

ἐν αὐτῷ, either ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ, or better ἐν τῷ ἤδη ὁρωμένῳ, which more 


NOTES, BOOK 171. Lil 


distinctly expresses the idea of ‘battle ;’ their conduct in the hour 42. 4. 
of conflict answers to the resolution (ἀξιοῦντες) which they formed 
in the moment preceding it. 

ἡγησάμενοι μᾶλλον, 1) is commonly taken in a pregnant sense, as 
if δεῖν were understood : ‘thinking it right rather.’ Cp. Xen. Hell. 
v. 1. 15, ἣν δὲ ἀνεχόμενόν με Spare καὶ ψύχη καὶ θάλπη καὶ ἀγρυπνίαν, 
οἴεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς ταῦτα πάντα καρτερεῖν. Plato, Prot. 346 B, πολλάκις 
δέ, οἶμαι, καὶ Σιμωνίδης ἡγήσατο καὶ αὐτὸς ἢ τύραννον ἣ ἄλλον τινα τῶν 
τοιούτων ἐπαινέσαι καὶ ἐγκωμιάσαι. But the presence of the article 
before ἀμύνεσθαι creates a difficulty, for although we might say 
οἴεσθε ἀμύνεσθαι for οἴεσθε δεῖν ἀμύνεσθαι, we could hardly say οἴεσθε 
τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι OF οἴεσθε δεῖν τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι. 

2) The article a) may be partly explained as emphasizing the 
opposition between the two clauses τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι καὶ παθεῖν and τὸ 
ἐνδόντες σώζεσθαι. Or 4) it may have arisen from dittography 
atrgro. Cases in which the article is used with the infinitive after 
λέγειν, πείθειν, etc., or expressions like τὸ μὲν προσταλαιπωρεῖν τῷ 
δόξαντι καλῷ οὐδεὶς πρόθυμος ἦν, ii. 53 med. (Jelf, ὃ 670. 1) are not 
sufficiently parallel. 

δι᾿ ἐλαχίστου καιροῦ, not ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καιρῷ, (διά, ‘ after,’ or ‘ after 
the interval of,’) because the moment of their death is thought of 
as a definite though swiftly passing interval, not as a mere point 
of time. τύχης may be taken either 1) with καιροῦ, or 2)* with ἀκμῇ, 
τῆς δόξης μᾶλλον ἣ τοῦ δέους going in the former case with ἅμα ἀκμῇ, 
in the latter with ἀπηλλάγησαν. 


καὶ ὁπότε καὶ πείρᾳ του σφαλείησαν, οὔκουν καὶ τὴν πόλιν γε τῆς σφετέρας 43. 1. 
ἀρετῆς ἀξιοῦντες στερίσκειν, κάλλιστον δὲ ἔρανον αὐτῇ προϊέμενοι. κοινῇ 2. 
γὰρ τὰ σώματα διδόντες ἰδίᾳ τὸν ἀγήρων ἔπαινον ἐλάμβανον καὶ τὸν τάφον 
ἐπισημότατον κιτιλ. 

ἔρανος, lit. a contribution to a friendly society. γάρ justifies the 

metaphor implied in ἔρανος. ‘The antithesis, which is poor enough, 
Seems to be as follows. They die all together and so make a 
contribution to the state in common ; but they receive back indi- 
vidually the meed of honour which repays them; just as in an 
‘pases the contribution is made by all, and paid into a common 
stock, but the benefit is returned to each individual. 


112 THUCYDIDES. 


Compare the words at the end of the chapter, ὁ pera ῥώμης καὶ 
κοινῆς ἐλπίδος ἅμα γιγνόμενος ἀναίσθητος θάνατος. The pain of their 
death is diminished by being shared with others, but their glory 
suffers no such diminution. 


GAyeworépa γὰρ ἀνδρί ye φρόνημα ἔχοντι ἡ [dv τῷ] μετὰ τοῦ μαλακι- 
σθῆναι κάκωσις ἣ ὁ μετὰ ῥώμης κιτιλ. 

ἐν τῷ is probably a gloss explaining μετὰ τοῦ, which has been 
inserted in the text; as in i. 6 fin. pera τοῦ γυμνάζεσθαι is explained 
by the Scholiast ἐν τῷ γυμνάζεσθαι. This supposition is favoured 
by the varying position of the words, which in some MSS. are 
placed after, and not before, μετὰ τοῦ They may therefore ,be 
Omitted. 

κάκωσις, as the context shows, is not the disgrace of cowardice, 
but the disaster which may fall upon the prosperous, and which 
is aggravated by the disgrace of cowardice. 


~ 


τὸ 8 εὐτυχές, οἱ dv τῆς εὐπρεπεστάτης λάχωσιν, ὥσπερ οἷδε μὲν νῦν 
τελευτῆς, ὑμεῖς δὲ λύπης, καὶ οἷς ἐνευδαιμονῆσαί τε ὁ βίος ὁμοίως καὶ 
ἐντελευτῆσαι ξυνεμετρήθη. 
τὸ δ᾽ εὐτυχές, οἶξξξε 1) τὸ δ᾽ εὐτυχὲς ἐκείνων εἶναι οἵ, OF 2) εὐτυχεῖς δὲ οἵ, 
as in vi. 14 fin. τὸ καλῶς δ᾽ ἄρξαι τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, ὃς ἂν τὴν πατρίδα ὠφελήσῃ 
τὰ πλεῖστα. 
ξυν-, like ὁμοίως, expresses the coincidence of the end of their 
happiness with the end of their lives. But there is a flaw in the 
language which is partly concealed by the parallelism of the 
infinitives ἐνευδαιμονῆσαί τε καὶ ἐντελευτῆσαι. For these words imply, 
not that the end of their happiness and the end of their lives, 
but that their happiness itself, and the end of their lives, coincide. 
‘To whom their life has been meted out to be happy in and to 
die in alike,’ i.e. ‘Whose happiness was commensurate with their 
life, and was only ended by their death. Compare 
‘ Like Charicles 
Who living to a hundred years of age 
Free from the least disease, fearing a sickness, 
To kill it, killed himself, and made his death 
The period of his health.’ 


NOTES, BOOK I. 113 


The Twins, a Comedy, W. Rider, 1665 (Lamb’s English Dra- 44. 1. 
matic Poems, p. 519). 


Poppo would read εὖ τελευτῆσαι, or with one, not first-rate, MS. 
τελευτῆσαι. 


χαλεπὸν μὲν οὖν οἷδα πείθειν dv, ὧν καὶ πολλάκις ἔξετε ὑπομνήματα ἐν 44. 2, 
ἄλλων εὐτυχίαις. 

ὧν, scil. περὶ τούτων ὧν. The words may be either masculine 
- OF neuter. 


ov γὰρ οἷόν re ἶσον τι ἣ δίκαιον βουλεύεσθαι of ἂν μὴ καὶ παῖδας ἐκ τοῦ 44. 3. 
ὁμοίου παραβαλλόμενοι κινδυνεύωσιν. 

Compare for the idea i. 91 fin. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι μὴ ἀπὸ ἀντιπάλον 
παρασκευῆς ὁμοῖόν τι ἢ ἴσον ἐς τὸ κοινὸν βουλεύεσθαι. ᾿ 


φθόνος γὰρ τοῖς ζῶσι πρὸς τὸ ἀντίπαλον, τὸ δὲ μὴ ἐμποδὼν ἀναντα- 46. 1. 
γωνίστῳ εὐνοίᾳ τετίμηται. 

* The living are exposed to jealousy because they have rivals;’ 
lit. ‘in respect of the rivalry which exists.” The meaning is, not 
that the living envy, but that they are envied. This is proved by 
the corresponding clause, ‘the dead are not envied.’ Yet at the 
beginning of the speech Pericles, perhaps for the sake of a rhetorical 
effect, implies that envy extends to the dead. 


τῆς τε yap ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι ὑμῖν μεγάλη 46. 2. 
ἡ δόξα, καὶ ἧς ἂν ἐπ᾿ ἔλάχιστον ἀρετῆς πέρι ἣ ψόγον ἐν τοῖς ἄρσεσι κλέος 
ἥ. 

μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι is an expression of pity, not of contempt. 
‘Women are naturally prone to tears, but they must not fall below 
their ordinary nature,’ i.e. they must not give way more than they 

an help. 

Others suppose τῆς ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως to include all feminine 
virtue, implying the true womanly nature in the higher sense. As 
Arnold says, ‘ By τῆς ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως it seems to be implied that 
women were not called upon to be for ever striving to surpass 
one’ another and themselves by, some extraordinary display of 
heroism; it was their praise rather to live up to the natural 

VOL. Π. I 


45. 2. 


46. 2. 


47. 4. 


48. 3. 


114 THUCYDIDES. 


excellence of their sex, its modesty and affectionateness, than to 
aspire to go beyond it.’ But this, which is a modern rather than 
an ancient strain of reflection, is unsuited to the occasion; and it 
is doubtful whether ὑπάρχουσα φύσις will bear this higher sense. 
Cp. iii. 74 init. al γυναῖκες παρὰ φύσιν ὑπομένουσαι τὸν θόρυβον. In 
the words μὴ χείροσι no censure is necessarily implied. Cp. ii. 
62 med. τῶν πατέρων μὴ χείρους φανῆναι. 


νῦν δὲ ἀπολοφυράμενοι ὃν προσήκει ἕκαστος, ἀποχωρεῖτε. 
ἀπολοφυράμενοι, either ‘when you have duly lamented,’ or ‘now 
that you have duly lamented.’ 


οὔτε yap ἰατροὶ ἤρκουν τὸ πρῶτον θεραπεύοντες ἀγνοίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ 
μάλιστα ἔθνησκον, ὅσῳ καὶ μάλιστα προσήεσαν, οὔτε ἄλλη ἀνθρωπεία τέχνη 
οὐδεμία. 

Either 1)* the physicians were of no avail, ‘although at first 
in their ignorance they attempted to treat the disease,’ when no 
treatment could be of any use; or 2) they were of no avail, ‘ for 
at first they treated the disorder in ignorance, implying that they 
afterwards treated it with more knowledge, and with some, but not 
with any great success. Either explanation may find a degree of 
support from i. 51, where we read 1) πάντα ξυνήρει καὶ τὰ πάσῃ διαίτῃ 
ἴαμα ws θεραπενόμενα : and on the other hand 2) ἕν re οὐδὲ ἕν κατέστῃ 
support εἰπεῖν 6 τε χρὴ προσφέροντας ὠφελεῖν᾽ τὸ yap τῳ ξυνενεγκὸν ἄλλον 
τοῦτο ἔβλαπτε, as though remedies might do good as well as harm. 

For the Plague see Appendix to Notes on Book ii. 


λεγέτω μὲν οὖν περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἕκαστος γιγνώσκει καὶ ἰατρὸς καὶ ἰδιώτης, 
ἀφ᾽ ὅτου εἰκὸς ἦν γενέσθαι αὐτό, καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἅστινας νομίζει τοσαύτης 
μεταβολῆς ἱκανὰς εἶναι δύναμιν ἐς τὸ μεταστῆσαι σχεῖν. 

μεταβολῆς, gen. after τὰς αἰτίας, or rather after the relative ἅστινας, 
scil. αἰτίας. This sentence is pleonastic. First there is a resumption 
of μεταβολῆς in ἐς τὸ μεταστῆσα. Then the words ἱκανὰς εἶναι are 
supplemented by δύναμιν σχεῖν, which have nearly the same mean- 
ing. Instead of saying ἱκανὰς εἶναι ἐς τὸ μεταστῆσαι ΟΥ̓ δύναμιν σχεῖν 
ἐς τὸ μεταστῆσαι, either of which would have been sufficient. 
Thucydides combines the two expressions in a cumbrous though 


NOTES, BOOK Tf. 118 


mot ungrammatical phrase, thus emphasizing his opinion of the 48. 3. 
insufficiency of the causes commonly assigned to the plague. 
«They were inadequate; they could never have produced such 

a convulsion of nature.’ 

Poppo distinguishes between μεταβολή and μεταστῆσαι on the 
Strength of a passage in vi. 20 med. οὔτε δεομένας μεταβολῆς 7 ἂν 
ἐκ βιαίου τις δουλείας ἄσμενος ἐς paw μετάστασιν yxwpoin, where pera- 
ολήΞξερτοοεβϑβ of change, μετάστασις ΞΞῖῃα state which follows it. 
But the sense of permanent condition in the passage quated 
belongs to the substantive μετάστασις, and is not necessarily con- 
tained in μεταστῆσαι, the aorist infinitive of the verb, which we 
have here. 


καὶ ὁπύτε ἐς τὴν καρδίαν στηρίξαι, ἀνέστρεφέ τε αὐτὴν, καὶ ἀποκαθάρσεις 49. 3. 
χολῆς πᾶσαι, ὅσαι ὑπὸ ἰατρῶν ὠνομασμέναι εἰσίν, ἐπήεσαν, καὶ αὗται μετὰ 
ταλαιπωρίας μεγάλης. λύγξ τε τοῖς πλείοσιν ἐνέπεσε κενή, σπασμὸν 4. 
ἐνδιδοῦσα ἰσχυρόν, τοῖς μὲν μετὰ ταῦτα λωφήσαντα, τοῖς δὲ καὶ πολλῴ 
ὕστερον. 

1)* μετὰ ταῦτα λωφήσαντα may be taken together. ‘There fol- 
lowed an ineffectual retching, causing violent convulsions; in 
some cases setting in as soon as the evacuations of bile had 
abated, while in other cases there might be a considerable interval,’ 
during which the other characteristics of the disease must be 
supposed to have taken their course. μετὰ ταῦτα refers to the 
ἀποκαθάρσεις χολῆς described in the previous sentence. 

Or 2) λωφήσαντα may be joined with σπασμόν, and pera ταῦτα 
referred to ἀποκαθάρσεις or λὺγξ κενή, Or both. The meaning will 
then be, not that the convulsions occurred, but that they ceased, 
in some cases immediately, in others a considerable time, after the 
cessation of .the evacuations or of the spasmodic retching. But 
a) we should then require some word like εὐθύς or αὐτίκα with μετὰ 
ταῦτα in order to point the opposition to πολλῷ ὕστερον, and 4) καί 
in the second clause agrees better with the positive notion con- 
tained in ἐνέπεσε and ἐνδιδοῦσα than with the negative notion of 
mere cessation in λωφήσαντα. 

For the use of the aorist λωφήσαντα involved in 2) cp. notc on 
iv. 112. 1. 

12 


116 THUCYDIDES. 


49.5. ra δὲ ἐντὸς οὕτως ἐκαίετο ὥστε μήτε τῶν πάνυ λεπτῶν ἱματίων καὶ ow- 
δόνων τὰς ἐπιβολὰς μήτ᾽ ἄλλο τι ἣ γυμνὸν ἀνέχεσθαι. 
γυμνόν, Scil. τινά OF ὄντα τινά. γυμνοί, the reading of the Lauren- 
tian and a few other MSS., may be explained as though οὕτως 
ἐκαίοντο οἱ νοσοῦντες had preceded. 


49. 6. καὶ τὸ σῶμα, ὅσονπερ χρόνον καὶ ἧ νόσος ἀκμάζοι, οὐκ ἐμαραίνετο, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀντεῖχε παρὰ δόξαν τῇ ταλαιπωρίᾳ ὥστε ἣ διεφθείροντο ot πλεῖστοι ἐνα- 
ταῖοι καὶ ἑβδομαῖοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐντὸς καύματος, ἔτι ἔχοντές τι δυνάμεως, ἣ εἰ 
διαφύγοιεν, ἐπικατιόντος τοῦ νοσήματος ἐς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ ἑλκώσεως τε αὐτῇ 
ἰσχυρᾶς ἐγγιγνομένης, καὶ διαῤῥοίας ἅμα ἀκράτου ἐπιπιπτούσης, ot πολλοὶ 
ὕστερον δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀσθενείᾳ ἀπεφθείροντο. 

The word ὥστε is connected more closely with the first of the two 
alternatives which follow, ἢ διεφθείροντο. .. τι δυνάμεως, than with 
the second. ‘The strength of the patients held out, so that most 
of them died not of weakness, but of internal fever. But if they 
died of weakness, they died at a later stage, and in consequence of 
new disorders.’ of πλεῖστοι contrasts those who died in the first 
stage with those who survived it: of πολλοί contrasts those who 
died in the second stage with those who survived altogether. 

ἀκράτου, either 1)* ‘violent,’ or 2) a medical term, explained by 
Galen, ἀκρήτους ὑποχωρήσεις εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν ὁ [Ἱπποκράτης τὰς ἀμίκτους 
ὑγρότητος ὑδατώδους, αὐτὸν μόνον ἔχουσας εἶλικρινῆ ὑπερχόμενον κάτω χυμόν, 
εἴτε τὸν τῆς ξανθῆς χολῆς, εἴτε τὸν τῆς μελαίνης (In Hippocr. Aph. vii. 
Kiihn, vol. xviii. 1. p. 122.) 


δ1. 1. τὸ μὲν οὖν νόσημα πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα παραλιπόντι dromias ... τοιοῦτον ἦν 
ἐπὶ πᾶν τὴν ἰδέαν. 
παραλιπόντι is dative of reference after τοιοῦτον ἦν, similar to the 
dative after δοκεῖν, φαίνεσθαι, etc. Cp. ii, 96 init. (ἀνίστησι) τοὺς 
ὑπερβάντι Αἷμον Γέτας. 


51. 1. καὶ ἄλλο παρελύπει κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον οὐδὲν τῶν εἰωθότων ὃ δὲ καὶ 
γένοιτο ἐς τοῦτο ἐτελεύτα. 

These words have been quoted as a repetition of the passage 

in i, 49 init. τὸ μὲν yap ἔτος, ὡς ὡμολυγεῖτο, ἐκ πάντων μάλιστα δὴ ἐκεῖνο 


2 > a ’ o » s 
ἄνοσον ἐς ras ἄλλας ἀσθενείας ἐτύγχανεν dv’ εἰ δέ τις Kai προέκαμνέ τι, ἐς 


NOTES, BOOK II. 117 


τοῦτο πάντα ἀπεκρίθη. But there Thucydides is speaking of dis- 51. 1." 
orders which preceded the plague, here of disorders which accom- 
panied it. Obs. κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον in the one case; προέκαμνέ τι 
in the other. 
Yet there is a slight contradiction, for in the first passage he 
seems to imply that all diseases were merged in the plague; here 
he speaks of some which sprang up during the continuance of the 


plague. 


σῶμά τε αὕταρκες ὃν οὐδὲν διεφάνη πρὸς αὐτὸ ἰσχύος πέρι ἣ ἀσθενείας, 51. 3. 
ἀλλὰ πάντα ξυνήρει, καὶ τὰ πάσῃ διαίτῃ θεραπευόμενα. 

διεφάνη, ‘proved to be, &a-=‘as distinguished from others.’ 
πρὸς αὐτό, SCil. τὸ νόσημα, is to be taken with αὔταρκες. After speak- 
ing of the inutility a) of care, 5) of medical aid, Thucydides 
goes on to speak c) of the failure of the natural constitution, 
whether strong or weak, to resist the disease. ἰσχύος πέρι ἣ ἀσθενείας, 
‘in respect of strength or weakness.’ Cp. Southey’s Life of Nelson, 
quoted by Arnold, ‘ All the prevailing disorders have attacked me, 
said Nelson, writing from Corsica in 1794, ‘but I have not strength 
enough for them to fasten on.’ 


δεινότατον δὲ παντὸς ἦν τοῦ κακοῦ ἥ Te ἀθυμία, ὁπότε τις αἴσθοιτο κάμνων 81, 4, 
(πρὸς yap τὸ ἀνέλπιστον εὐθὺς τραπόμενοι τῇ γνώμῃ πολλῷ μᾶλλον προΐεντο 
σφᾶς αὐτούς, καὶ οὐκ dyreixov), καὶ ὅτι ἕτερος ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου θεραπείας dva- 
πιμπλάμενοι ὥσπερ τὰ πρόβατα ἔθνησκον. 

πολλῷ μᾶλλον 1) may refer to διεφθείροντο implied in προΐεντο σφᾶς 
αὐτούς. ‘They hastened their own death by giving themselves up 
to despair.’ Or 2)* the words may imply that their death was due 
more to the weakness of their own minds than to the plague. 
‘They let themselves down and sank more rapidly’ than they 
would have done through the mere force of the disease. Or 
3) ‘they gave themselves up far more’ when they felt the disease 
coming, though they had been disposed to do so before. Or again 
4) πολλῷ μᾶλλον προΐεντο καὶ οὐκ ἀντεῖχον May be equivalent to πολλῷ 
μᾶλλον προΐεντο ἣ ἀντεῖχον : ‘when they should have resolved to live, 
they were much more inclined to throw away their lives in despair.’ 

ὥσπερ ra πρόβατα, SC. ἀναπίμπλαται, though not ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρον θεραπείας. 


51. 4. 5. 


118 THUCYDIDES, 


καὶ τὺν πλεῖστον φθόρον τοῦτο ἐνεποίει. εἴτε yap μὴ θέλοιεν δεδιότες 
ἀλλήλοις προσιέναι, ἀπώλλυντο ἐρῆμοι, καὶ οἰκίαι πολλαὶ ἐκενώθησαν ἀπορίᾳ 
τοῦ θεραπεύσοντος" εἴτε προσίοιεν. διεφθείροντο, καὶ μάλιστα οἱ ἀρετῆς 
τι μεταποιούμενοι" αἰσχύνῃ γὰρ ἠφείδουν σφῶν αὐτῶν, ἐσιόντες παρὰ φίλου" 
ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰς ὀλοφύρσεις τῶν ἀπογιγνομένων τελευτῶντες | καὶ οἱ οἰκεῖοι 
ἐξέκαμνον, ὑπὸ τοῦ πολλοῦ κακοῦ νικώμενοι. 

τοῦτο, SCil. τὸ ἕτερον ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου θεραπείας ἀναπίμπλασθαι. εἴτε yap— 

cire—. Either through the terror of the infection the sick were 
left to die uncared for, or those who attended them caught the 
disease : thus, indirectly by the neglect of the sick which it caused, 
or directly by contagion, the rapidity with which the infection 
spread was the chief cause of the mortality. 
_ ol ἀρετῆς τι perarotovpevor, not ‘claiming’ as in 1. 140 init. ἢ μηδὲ 
κατορθοῦντες τῆς ξυνέσεως μεταποιεῖσθαι, but in the better sense of 
‘aspiring to virtue,’ without any connotation of ‘pretending.’ 
Cp. Plat. Politic. 289 Ὁ. E, obs ἀναμφισβητήτως δούλους ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν, 
ἥκιστα βασιλικῆς μεταποιουμένους τέχνης, where the word may have 
either meaning. 

ἐπεί 1)* may be joined with the idea contained in ἠφείδουν σφῶν 
αὐτῶν, the missing link being a) that ‘such devotion was remark- 
able.’ ἐπεί here nearly=‘ whereas,’ and introduces an argument 
ἐξ ἐναντίων, contrasting this heroic conduct on the part of friends 
with the selfishness of the sufferers’ own families. ‘Some took no 
thought of themselves in their care of the dying ; which was the 
more remarkable, for their very relations neglected them.’ Or δ)" 
more simply, ‘It was indeed an act of devotion at a time when 
even relatives deserted the sick.’ 

Or 2) ἐπεί may be connected with ἐσιόντες παρὰ φίλους : ‘ whom 
it was necessary to tend, for their own relations deserted them.’ 

Or once more 3) the clause ἐπεὶ καί x.r.A. may be regarded as ἃ 
resumption and confirmation of the statements in the previous 
sentence about the extent of the calamity, εἴτε γὰρ. . . διεφθείροντο : 
καὶ μάλιστα... . παρὰ φίλους being parenthetical. 

τὰς ὀλοφύρσεις τῶν ἀπογιγνομένων. It has been doubted whether 
these words mean 1) ‘ lamentations of the dying’ (cf. Plato, Rep. 
387 E, ὀρθῶς ἄρ᾽ ἂν ἐξαιροῖμεν τοὺς θρήνους τῶν ὀνομαστῶν ἀνδρῶν.) 

Or 2)" ‘lamentations over the dying.’ 


NOTES, BOOK II. 119 


Against 2) it may be urged that lamentations would be made, 61. 5. 
not over the dying, but over the dead. On the other hand, the 
~wword ἐξέκαμνον seems to imply a cessation from some act of our 
«τι, not a weariness of another’s act (Arn.) 

May not the difficulty be solved by adopting 2)*, but taking 
-ἰ τῶν ἀπογιγνομένων not for ‘those who were dying at the time when 
“m_he lamentations were uttered,’ but, in a more general sense of the 
“wp resent-imperfect participle, for ‘those who were dying in the 
“yplague?’ They gave up from weariness (ἐξέκαμνον), lamenting over 
“hose who died (from time to time), much more attending on the 

ssick, which was less required by religion. Cp. ἔθνησκον, ἀπώλλυντο, 
«διεφθείροντο, supra ; ἀποθνήσκοντες, C. 52. 2. 


καὶ αὐτοὶ τῷ παραχρῆμα meptxape: καὶ ἐς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον ἐλπίδος τι 5]. 6. 
εἶχον κούφης μηδ᾽ ἂν ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου νοσήματός ποτε ἔτι διαφθαρῆναι. 

‘Though it was but a fancy, they imagined that having escaped 
this, the worst of diseases, they could now only die of old age.’ 


οἰκιῶν γὰρ οὖχ ὑπαρχουσῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν καλύβαις πνιγηραῖς ὥρᾳ ἔτους 62. 2. 
διαιτωμένων, ὁ φθόρος ἐγίγνετο οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ νεκροὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλοις 
ἀποθνήσκοντες ἔκειντο, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἐκαλινδοῦντο καὶ περὶ τὰς κρήνας 
ἁπάσας ἡμιθνῆτες τοῦ ὕδατος ἐπιθυμίᾳ. 

ὥρᾳ ἔτους is to be taken with πνιγηραῖς, ‘ stifling from the time of 
year.’ 

νεκροί is to be taken with ἐκεῖντο ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλοις : together they form 
the predicate. ‘As fast as they died they lay dead one upon 
another.’ The present or imperfect participle ἀποθνήσκοντες, which 
agrees with the unexpressed subject of éxeivro, relates not to the 
particular time of dying, but to the fact of death at some indefinite 
time, like τῶν ἀπογιγνομένων supr., see preceding note. 

Similarly, we might say in English, ‘ Dying continually, they 
lay dead one upon another,’ meaning by ‘dying,’ not ‘in the act 
of death,’ but ‘as fast as they died.’ 


ἐς ὀλιγωρίαν ἐτράποντο καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων ὁμοίως. 52. 3. 
Lit. ‘ things sacred and things righteous,’ i.e. lawful or innocent, 
and so ‘secular’ or ‘ profane.’ 


120 THUCYDIDES. 


52. 4. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐς ἀναισχύντους θήκας ἐτράποντο σπάνει τῶν ἐπιτηδείων διεξῖε. 
᾿ς πὸ συχνοὺς ἤδη προτεθνάναι σφίσιν ἐπὶ πυρὰς γὰρ ἀλλοτρίας φϑάσαντεε 
τοὺς νήσαντας οἱ μὲν ἐπιθέντες τὸν ἑαυτῶν νεκρὸν ὑφῆπτον, οἱ δέ, καεομένοι»» 

ἄλλον, ἄνωθεν ἐπιβαλόντες ὃν φέροιεν ἀπήεσαν. 

ἐς ἀναισχύντους θήκας. Either 1) ‘had recourse to shameless 
modes of burial,’ or 2)* ‘had recourse shamelessly to the burial- 
places of others.’ 

According to 1) there is a difficulty in the word θήκας, θήκη; 
signifying ‘a place of burial,’ not ‘a mode of burial.’ Nor can the 
latter meaning of the word be justified on the analogy of τάφος, 
for the original idea of τάφος is not ‘ place of burial,’ but ‘ burial ;’ 
the signification ‘ place of burial’ being derivative, and not found 
in Homer. 

According to 2)* there is a difficulty a) in the word ἀναισχύντους, 
which we should expect, at any rate in a prose writer, to be applied 
to actions rather than to things ; 4) in the seeming confusion between 
θήκη, ‘ sepulchre,’ and πυρά, ‘ funeral pile,’ implied in the explanatory 
clause ἐπὶ πυρὰς γὰρ ἀλλοτρίας. But the burning of the bodies 
on another’s pyre may imply that they were laid in another’s 
sepulchre. 

φθάσαντες τοὺς νήσαντας applies strictly only to the clause οἱ μὲν 
ἐπιθέντες. With the second clause, of δὲ καιομένου ἄλλον, SOMe More 
general idea of anticipation, ‘before they could be stopped,’ has 
to be supplied. 


53.1. πρῶτόν τε ἦρξε καὶ ἐς τἄλλα τῇ πόλει ἐπὶ πλέον ἀνομίας τὸ νόσημα. 
ἀνομίας follows ἦρξε, not ἐπὶ πλέον. πρῶτον ἦρξε either 1)* a single 
pleonastic expression, ‘the plague was also the beginning οὗ ἃ 
general and widespread lawlessness,’ or 2) ‘the plague was the 
first beginning of a general and widespread lawlessness,’ i. e. the 
first, but not the only cause of it, implying that other causes 
came into operation later. 

For the 1) pleonastic use of πρῶτον with ἦρξε compare a similar 
use of the word with ἄρχεσθαι ; ii. 36 init. dpgopar δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν προγόνων 
πρῶτον : ii. 47 med. ἡ νόσος πρῶτον ἤρξατο γενέσθαι τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις : 
also iv. 87 fin. (ἄρξαι πρῶτοι). For the 2) stricter and more defined 
sense cp. 11. 48 init. ἤρξατο δὲ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ws λέγεται ἐξ Αἰθιιπίας 


NOTES, BOOK 1. 121 


“πῆς ὑπὲρ Αἰγύπτου, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ἐς Αἴγυπτον καὶ Λιβύην κατέβη, where 83. 1. 
Separate stages of the progress of the plague are described ; also 
1. 103 fin. 


καὶ τὸ μὲν προσταλαιπωρεῖν τῷ δόξαντι καλῷ οὐδεὶς πρόθυμος ἦν, 53. 3. 
ἄδηλον νομίζων εἰ πρὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ ἐλθεῖν διαφθαρήσεται. 

τῷ δόξαντι καλῷ, not visionary as opposed to real honour, but 
1)" in the stronger sense of δοκεῖν, ‘the recognised idea of honour.’ 
Cp. note on iii. 10. 1. 

Or 2) taking δόξαντι of the individual, ‘an honourable resolution.’ 


θεῶν δὲ φόβος ἣ ἀνθρώπων νόμος οὐδεὶς ἀπεῖργε, τὸ μὲν κρίνοντες ἐν 68. 4. 
ὁμοίῳ σέβειν καὶ μή κιτλ. 

κρίνοντες and οὐδείς which follows are so-called nominatives 
absolute, really depending on some idea, such as ‘they feared 
neither God nor man,’ gathered from the previous context. 


ἐγένετο μὲν οὖν ἔρις τοῖς ἀνθρώποις μὴ λοιμὸν ὠνομάσθαι.... ἀλλὰ λιμόν. 64. 3. 
As Classen well remarks, the dispute shows not the similarity, 
but the distinctness, of the two sounds and ot in ancient times. 


wept μὲν οὖν τοῦ χρηστηρίου τὰ γιγνόμενα ἤκαζον ὁμοῖα eivar’ ἐσβεβλη- δά. 5. 
κότων δὲ τῶν Πελοποννησίων ἡ νόσος ἤρξατο εὐθύς" καὶ ἐς μὲν Πελοπόννη- 
σον οὐκ ἐσῆλθεν, ὅ τι ἄξιον καὶ εἰπεῖν, ἐπενείματο δὲ ᾿Αθήνας μὲν μάλιστα, 
ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων χωρίων τὰ πολνανθρωπότατα. 

Strictly speaking there is no opposition between the two clauses, 
περὶ μὲν οὖν... ἐσβεβληκότων δέ: the second is a confirmation of the 
first. But Thucydides, not wishing to commit himself to the ful- 
filment of the oracle, is content to lay the two statements side by 
side, leaving the reader to draw his own inference. ‘Concerning 
the oracle, they certainly fancied that the course of events corres- 
ponded with it ; and it is true that no sooner had the Peloponnesians 
entered Attica than the plague began,’ etc. 

The plague would naturally appear to the Greek imagination as 
a fulfilment of the oracle of Apollo, he being the God who sent 
and averted pestilence, as in Iliad i. and in the first chorus of the 
Oedipus Tyrannus. 


δά. 5. 


60. 3. 


60. 4. 


60. 7. 
61. 1. 


122 THUCYDIDES, 


In μὲν οὖν each particle retains its own meaning, μέν answering 
to δέ below; as in many other places, e.g. ii. 75 init., iv. 8 med. 
iv. 112 fin. 


ἄραντες δὲ an’ αὐτῶν ἀφίκοντο ἐς Πρασιάς, τῆς Λακωνικῆς πάλισμα 
ἐπιθαλάσσιον, καὶ τῆς τε γῆς ἕτεμον, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πόλισμα εἷλον καὶ 
ἐπόρθησαν. 
Cp. Aristoph. Peace, 242, (acted in 423 or 421? B.c.) where 
War grinds the cities of Hellas in his mortar,— 
ΠΟ. ἰὼ Πρασιαὶ τρισάθλιαι καὶ πεντάκις 
καὶ πολλοδεκάκις, ὡς ἀπολεῖσθε τήμερον. 
ΤΡ. τουτὶ μέν, ἄνδρες, οὐδὲν ἡμῖν πρᾶγμά πω. 
τὸ γὰρ κακὸν τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς. 
The territory of Prasiae was again ravaged in 414, vi. 105 fin. 


καλῶς μὲν γὰρ φερόμενος ἀνὴρ τὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν, διαφθειρομένης τῆς 
πατρίδος, οὐδὲν ἧσσον ξυναπόλλυται. 

καλῶς φερόμενος, ‘ going on well,’ i.e. prosperous. Cp. v. 15 med. 
GAN’ of ᾿Αθηναῖοι οὕπω ἤθελον, εὖ φερόμενοι, ἐπὶ τῇ ἴσῃ καταλύεσθαι ; and 
v. 16 init. Νικίας... πλεῖστα τῶν τότε εὖ φερόμενος ἐν στρατηγίαις. 


πῶς οὐ χρὴ πάντας ἀμύνειν αὐτῇ καὶ μὴ ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς Spare, ταῖς κατ᾽ 
οἶκον κακοπραγίαις ἐκπεπληγμένοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς σωτηρίας ἀφίεσθε. 

The asyndeton is epexegetical, ἀφίεσθε being the explanation of 
Spare, cp. notes On iii. 37. 2, 59.2. The sentence would have been 
more regular if ἀφίεσθαι following χρή had been used instead 
of ἀφίεσθε. 


ὥστ᾽ εἴ μοι καὶ μέσως ἡγούμενοι μᾶλλον ἑτέρων προσεῖναι αὐτὰ πολεμεῖν 
ἐπείσθητε, οὐκ ἂν εἰκότως νῦν τοῦ γε ἀδικεῖν αἰτίαν φεροίμην. καὶ γὰρ οἷς 
μὲν αἵρεσις γεγένηται τἄλλα εὐτυχοῦσι, πολλὴ ἄνοια πολεμῆσαι" εἰ δ᾽ 
ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ἣ εἴξαντας εὐθὺς τοῖς πέλας ὑπακοῦσαι f κινδυνεύσαντας 
περιγενέσθαι, ὁ φνγὼν τὸν κίνδυνον τοῦ ὑποστάντος μεμπτότερος. 

The connection indicated by καὶ γάρ is as follows: ‘I might have 
been accused of dishonesty (τοῦ ἀδικεῖν) if I had led you into the 
egregious folly (avoa) of going to war without necessity. But 
there was no alternative.’ 

jv—either 1) the general may pass into the particular ; ‘if it was 


NOTES, BOOK II. 123 


necessary for us at the time,’ or 2)* the statement retains its 6]. 1. 
generality, but is emphasized by the use of the past tense, ‘ if it 
bas once been found necessary.’ 

εὐθύς is to be taken, not with εἴξαντας but with ὑπακοῦσαι, the 

point being, not that he who at once yields becomes a subject, but 
that he who yields becomes at once a subject. 


δεεῖτι τὸ μὲν λυποῦν ἔχει ἤδη τὴν αἴσθησιν ἑκάστῳ, τῆς δὲ ὠφελείας 6]. 2. 
ἄπ εςσ-τιν ἔτι ἡ δήλωσις ἅπασι. ᾿ ᾿ 

Ὕ hucydides makes an opposition between ‘each’ and ‘all,’ 
€ither 1)* merely verbal, or 2) based upon the difference between 
the private feelings of individuals, such as sorrow for the loss of 
their property and the like, and the public feelings with which men 
4NSp ire one another, and which they have in common, such as love 
of their country and delight in her preservation. The same thought 
1S Presented objectively just above, ii. 60 init. ἐγὼ yap ἡγοῦμαι πόλιν 
Cee ξύμπασαν ὀρθουμένην ὠφελεῖν τοὺς ἰδιώτας f καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τῶν 
Fad ἐτῶν εὐπραγοῦσαν, ἀθρόαν δὲ σφαλλομένην. 


ἐν ἴσῳ γὰρ of ἄνθρωποι δικαιοῦσι τῆς τε ὑπαρχούσης δόξης αἰτιᾶσθαι ὅστις 6]. 4. 
HenXaxia ἔλλείπει κιτιλ. 
δικαιοῦσι, ‘claim the right’ to blame, etc. 


τὸν δὲ πόνον τὸν κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον, μὴ γένηταί τε πολύς, καὶ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον B2. 1. 
περιγενώμεθα, ἀρκείτω μὲν ὑμῖν καὶ ἐκεῖνα, ἐν οἷς ἄλλοτε πολλάκις γε δὴ 
ἀκέδειξα οὐκ ὀρθῶς αὐτὸν ὑποπτευόμενον. 

ὑποπτευόμενον, coming at the end of the sentence, gives the 
key to its whole structure; τὸν δὲ πόνον is resumed in αὐτόν and 
governed by ἀπέδειξα; ὑποπτενόμενον, which agrees with πόνον, supplies 
the missing construction required for μὴ γένηται. 


δηλώσω δὲ καὶ τόδε, 5 μοι δοκεῖτε οὔτ᾽ αὐτοὶ πώποτε ἐνθυμηθῆναι ὑπάρχον 62. 1. 
ὑμῖν μεγέθους πέρι ἐς τὴν ἀρχήν, οὔτ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐν τοῖς πρὶν λόγοις. 

ὑπάρχον may be taken 1)* with ὅ, ‘your possession of which you 
never seem to have considered,’ or 2) absolutely, ‘ which you never 
seem to have considered, though it was in your power to do so.’ 

μεγέθους πέρι may be taken 1)* with ὑπάρχον, ‘ your possession of 
which, as bearing on the extent of your power, or 2) with ἐνθυμη- 


62. τ. 


62. 3. 


63. 2. 


124 THUCYDIDES. 


θῆναι, ‘ which you never seem to have considered, I mean, never to 
have considered its importance ;’ μεγέθους πέρι being epexegetic of 6. 
ἐς τὴν ἀρχήν may be taken 1)* with μεγέθους πέρι, ‘as touching the 
greatness which is yours in respect of your empire, or 2) with 
ὑπάρχον, ‘ your possession of which as touching your empire.’ 


οὐδ᾽ εἰκὸς χαλεπῶς φέρειν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ κήπιον καὶ ἐγκαλλώπισμα 
πλούτον πρὸς ταύτην νομίσαντας ὀλιγωρῆσαι. 

Cp. note on iii. 36. 4, πόλιν ὅλην διαφθεῖραι μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ τοὺς αἰτίους, 
and for αὐτῶν cp. note on i. 77. 3. 


αὔχημα μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ ἀμαθίας εὐτυχοῦς καὶ δειλῷ τινι ἐγγίγνεται, 
καταφρόνησις δέ, ὃς ἂν καὶ γνώμῃ πιστεύῃ τῶν ἐναντίων προέχειν" ὃ ἡμῖν 
ὑπάρχει. καὶ τὴν τόλμαν ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμοίας τύχης ἡ ξύνεσις ἐκ τοῦ ὑπέρφρονος 
ἐχυρωτέραν παρέχεται, ἔλπίδι τε ἧσσον πιστεύει, ἧς ἐν τῷ ἀπόρῳ ἡ ἰσχύς, 
γνώμῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ἧς βεβαιοτέρα ἡ πρόνοια. 

καὶ ἀπὸ ἀμαθίας εὐτυχοῦς κτλ. Either 1)* ‘boasting may arise 
from fortunate ignorance, and may be found in any coward, καὶ--- 
xai==‘both,’ ‘and,’ or rather 2) compressing the two clauses into 
one, ‘ boasting arising from mere lucky ignorance, may be found 
even in a coward.’ γνώμῃ is taken with πιστεύῃ, not with προέχειν. 

ἐκ tov ὑπέρῴρονος may be taken 1) with ἐχυρωτέραν παρέχεται, in- 
telligence gives confidence through the disdain which it inspires ; 
or 2)* with ἡ fuveots. But if the second, it is necessary that we 
should translate ‘an intelligence’ not ‘proceeding from,’ but 
‘ possessing, a natural consciousness of superiority ;’ the words 
being a resumption of the preceding clause, καταφρόνησις δέ, ὃς 
ἂν γνώμῃ πιστεύῃ τῶν ἐναντίων προέχειν. The point of the passage 
is in either case, not that intelligence is founded on disdain, but 
that disdain is to be commended in so far as it is founded on 
intelligence. 


ἧς οὐδ᾽ ἐκστῆναι ἔτι ὑμῖν ἔστιν, εἴ τις καὶ τόδε ἐν τῷ παρόντι δεδιὼς 
ἀπραγμοσύνῃ ἀνδραγαθίζεται 

εἴ τις καὶ τόδε ἀνδραγαθίζεται, ‘if any one is for practising this piece 
of virtue,’ scil. τὸ ἐκστῆναι τῆς ἀρχῆς. τόδε is a cognate accusative 
after ἀνδραγαθίζεται indicating the particular act of ἀνδραγαθία which 
is intended. 


NOTES, BOOK II. 125 


τὸ γὰρ ἄπραγμον ov σώζεται μὴ μετὰ τοῦ δραστηρίου τεταγμένον, οὐδὲ ἐν 68. 3. 
«Ἀρχούσῃ πόλει ξυμφέρει ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὑπηκόῳ ἀσφαλῶς δουλεύειν. 

1)* There is a complication of οὐδὲ ἐν ἀρχούσῃ πόλει ξυμφέρει 
δουλεύειν, and ἐν ὑπηκόῳ πόλει ἀσφαλές ἐστι δουλεύειν. Thucydides 
“means to say that it is not expedient for a sovereign state like 
Athens to submit to others, whereas for a subject state it is 
expedient, because this is the only chance of safety. The attempt 
to express the double thought in a single clause has led to the 
introduction of the word ἀσφαλῶς, which grammatically, though 
not in the mind of the writer, refers to both clauses. 

2) According to another explanation a comma is placed after 
ὑπηκόῳ, τὸ ἄπραγμον is made the nominative to ξυμφέρει, and a) 
ἀσφαλῶς δουλεύειν is regarded as a further result of inactivity in the 
subject state. ‘Inactivity is not expedient in a sovereign though 
it may be in a subject state, for men to be slaves with safety,’ i.e. 
‘securing, as it does, safety in slavery.’ Or 4) possibly δουλεύειν may 
depend on a repetition of an impersonal ξυμφέρει derived from the 
personal verb. ‘Inactivity is not expedient in a sovereign state, 
though it may be expedient in a subject state to enjoy a secure 
slavery.’ 

But the construction of the infinitive in either case is feeble, and © 
as confusion is a much more common characteristic of Thucydides 
than feebleness of construction, we shall do well to prefer 1). 


καὶ δύναμιν μεγίστην δὴ μέχρι τοῦδε κεκτημένην, ἧς ἐς ἀίδιον τοῖς ἐπιγιγ- 64. 3. 
νομένοις, ἣν καὶ νῦν ὑπενδῶμέν ποτε (πάντα γὰρ πέφυκε καὶ ἔλασσοῦσθαι) 
μνήμη καταλελείψεται. 

The word νῦν is difficult. For we cannot suppose that Pericles 
would refer to any immediate decline or fall of the Athenian 
empire. νῦν must therefore be taken as modified by πότε. ‘Even 
if’ (ἣν καῇ ‘the time is at hand when we shall have to abate 
somewhat of our claims.’ The words may be put into the mouth 
of Pericles by Thucydides, with a recollection of the conclusion 
of the war, and may be intended rather for the reader than the 
hearer. 


καίτοι ταῦτα ὁ μὲν ἀπράγμων μέμψαιτ᾽ ἄν, ὁ δὲ δρᾶν τι βουλόμενος καὶ 64. 4. 
αὐτὸς ζηλώσει: εἰ δέ τις μὴ κέκτηται, φθονήσει. 


64. 4. 


64. 5. 


65. 2. 


126 THUCYDIDES. 


καίτοι, ΟΡ. note on ii. 39. 4, iii. 39. 2. ‘ But surely, if this be true, 
although the indolent may blame us, we shall become the admira- 
tion of the enterprising,’ etc. 

1)* καὶ αὐτός, ‘he as well as we, goes with ζηλώσει, which governs 
ταῦτας. There is a slight inaccuracy in καὶ αὐτός ; the word ζηλώσει 
not being applicable to the Athenians as it is to their rivals. A 
more general word is required. ‘He will emulate, not what we 
emulate, but ‘ what we aspire to accomplish.’ 

Or 2) καὶ αὐτός may be taken with δρᾶν re βουλόμενος, ‘he who 
himself shares in our ambitious spirit.’ 


μῖσος μὲν yap οὐκ ἐπὶ πολὺ ἀντέχει, 4 δὲ παραυτίκα τε λαμπρότης καὶ 


. és τὸ ἔπειτα δόξα ἀείμνηστος καταλείπεται. ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔς τε τὸ μέλλον 


καλὸν προγνόντες Eg τε τὸ αὐτίκα μὴ αἰσχρὸν τῷ ἤδη προθύμῳ ἀμφότερα 
κτήσασθε x.7.X. 

ἡ δὲ παραντίκα τε λαμπροτής x.r.A. This sentence again is slightly 
inaccurate, for ‘the splendour of the hour’ cannot remain in the 
future. The inaccuracy however is softened by the word ἀείμνηστος. 
The splendour of the hour ‘is ever remembered and survives,’ or 
‘survives in the memory of men.’ Or we may say that the absence 
of the article with the second substantive fuses the two ideas together, 
and renders it easier to attribute to both of them the predicate 
(ἀείμνηστος καταλείπεται), which, strictly speaking, belongs to the latter 
only, ‘the splendour in the present becoming glory in the future, 
remains and is remembered for ever.’ 

The two ideas are repeated in the words és τὸ μέλλον καλόν, ἐς τὸ 


αὐτίκα μὴ αἰσχρόν. 


ὁ μὲν δῆμος ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἐλασσόνων ὁρμώμενος ἐστέρητο καὶ τούτων, οἱ δὲ 
δυνατοὶ καλὰ κτήματα κατὰ τὴν χώραν οἰκοδομίαις τε καὶ πολυτελέσι 
κατασκευαῖς ἀπυλωλεκότες. 

οἰκοδομίαις may be taken 1) with καλά, though the order of the 
words is against this explanation ; or 2)* as the dative of accom- 
paniment, more commonly used with σύν, or with αὐτός, but some- 
times, though very rarely, without, as in Eur. Bacch. 129, (Jelf, 
604. 1,)— 

ava δὲ βάκχια συντόνῳ 


κέρασαν ἁδυβόᾳ Φρυγίων 


NOTES, BOOK II. 127 


αὐλῶν πνεύματι, ματρός re Ῥέας θὅ. 2. 
ἐς χέρα θῆκαν, κτύπον 
εὐάσμασι βακχᾶν. 
Although no satisfactory instance of this use of the dative seems 
“Wo occur in prose, yet it may be remarked generally that in earlier 
“Greek writers, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Plato, there is a 
_ Aess frequent use of prepositions (especially περί and ἐν), asin later e 
“writers, where the relations of thought become more complex, 
a multiplication of them. 


ὧν μὲν περὶ τὰ olxeia ἕκαστος ἤλγει, ἀμβλύτεροι ἤδη ὄντες x.7.d. 65. 4. 
ὧν Ξε τούτων d, and is to be explained as a genitive of relation with 
ἀμβλύτεροι ὄντες, cp. note on i. 77. 3. 


οἱ δὲ ταῦτά re πάντα ἐς τοὐναντίον ἔπραξαν, καὶ ἄλλα ἔξω τοῦ πολέμου 66. 7. 
δοκοῦντα εἶναι κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας φιλοτιμίας καὶ ἴδια κέρδη κακῶς ἔς τε σφᾶς 
αὐτοὺς καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους ἐπολίτευσαν. 

1)* ‘Which appeared to have nothing to do with the war, but 
really had.’ Or 2) in a stronger sense, ‘which cannot,’ or ‘could 
not, be supposed to have anything to do with the war.’ Cp. iv. 
23 init. of δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐγκλήματα ἔχοντες ἐπιδρομήν τε τῷ τειχίσματι 
παράσπονδον καὶ ἄλλα οὐκ ἀξιόλογα δοκοῦντα εἶναι οὐκ ἀπεδίδοσαν. viii. 
86 med. καὶ ἐδόκει ᾿Αλκιβιάδης πρῶτον τότε καὶ οὐδενὸς ἔλασσον τὴν 
πόλιν ὠφελῆσαι. ὡρμημένων γὰρ τῶν ἐν Σάμῳ ᾿Αθηναίων πλεῖν ἐπὶ σφᾶς 
αὐτοὺς .. . κωλυτὴς γενέσθαι. 

ταῦτα πάντα. Such as the great expedition to Syracuse, the earlier 
operations in Sicily, and the attempt upon Cydonia in Crete, ii. 
85 fin. This last instance is cited by Arnold; but it should be 
remembered that it took place within the lifetime of Pericles, 
perhaps after he had withdrawn from public affairs. 

ἄλλα ἔξω τοῦ πολέμου κι. The intrigues of Alcibiades at Argos, 
cited by Classen, though they led to the defeat of Mantinea, can 
hardly be regarded as disastrous to Athens, for they secured the 
permanent alliance of Athens with Argos. Much more in point 
is the revolution of Pisander, and the constant misgovernment 
of the city, as shown by the condemnation of the generals, by 
the refusal to make peace in 410, and by the second disgrace of 
Alcibiades. 


65. 1. 


65. II. 


128 THUCYDIDES. 


κακῶς ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους ἐπολίτευσαν. Not ‘with bad effects for 
the allies,’ but ‘with bad effects on the interests of Athens in 
respect of the allies.’ (Classen.) Cp. viii. 64. 


καὶ οὐκ ἤγετο μᾶλλον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἣ αὐτὸς ἦγε διὰ τὸ μὴ κτώμενος ἐξ οὐ 
προσηκόντων τὴν δύναμιν πρὸς ἡδονήν τι λέγειν, GAN’ ἔχων ἐπ᾽ ἀξιώσει καὶ 
πρὸς ὀργήν τι ἀντειπεῖν. . 

1) Classen, with some of the older editors, instead of taking ἔχων 
as equivalent to δυνάμενος, supplies δύναμιν with it, and opposes ἔχων 
ἐπ᾿ ἀξιώσει tO κτώμενος ἐξ οὐ προσηκόντων, SO that the construction of 
the two clauses corresponds precisely, ‘ not striving to gain power 
by corrupt means, but already possessing power on the strength 
of his reputation.’ Cf. ii. 62 fin. αἴσχιον δὲ ἔχοντας ἀφαιρεθῆναι ἣ 
κτωμένους ἀτυχῆσαι. 

2)* But the repetition of δύναμιν with ἔχων is far less forcible and 
idiomatic than the construction of ἔχων (ΞΞ δυνάμενος) with ἀντειπεῖν, 
the whole clause διὰ τὸ μὴ κτώμενος λέγειν answering to ἔχων ἀντειπεῖν, 
NOt κτώμενος to ἔχων. The position of μή after διὰ τό creates an 
regularity in ἀλλά, The sentence would be correct, though not 
elegant, if we had ἔχειν for ἔχων, or if οὐ (κτώμενος ἐξ οὐ προσηκόντων 
τὴν δύναμιν) πρὸς ἡδονήν τι λέγων had preceded. 


ὃς οὐ τοσοῦτον γνώμης ἁμάρτημα ἦν πρὸς οὗς ἐπήεσαν ὅσον οἱ ἐκπέμψαντες 
οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα τοῖς οἰχομένοις ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας 
διαβολὰς περὶ τῆς τοῦ δήμου προστασίας τά τε ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ ἀμβλύτερα 
ἐποίουν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν πόλιν πρῶτον ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἐταράχθησαν. 

These words seem to imply a neglect of the expedition which is 
scarcely indicated in Thucydides’ own narrative. The leaving 
Nicias in the sole command after the death of Lamachus (vi. 108 
med.; cp. vii. 16), the want of cavalry during the first year of the 
war (vi. 71 med.), and the remissness which allowed Gylippus and 
the reinforcements to leave the shores of Peloponnesus (vii. 15 fin., 
19 fin.), are the three chief instances of neglect which he mentions. 
Yet the tone of Nicias’ letter (vii. 11-15) is reproachful, and im- 
plies carelessness and the want of active and continuous aid on the 
part of the Athenians. And we can very well believe, what is 
not expressly stated by Thucydides, that while the enemies of 


NOTES, BOOK II. 129 


~«Al|cibiades were in power they were more intent on destroying 65. 11. 
ἊΝ αἷσι than on furthering the interests of the expedition. The recall 
«— Alcibiades himself is regarded by Thucydides as fatal to the 
=state (vi. 15). 
τά τε ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ x«.r.4. Either 1)* conducted military 
“«—)perations with less vigour, or better 2) made the proceedings 
««=—/ the army less energetic. 


σφαλέντες δ᾽ ἐν Σικελίᾳ ἄλλῃ τε παρασκευῇ καὶ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ τῷ πλείονι BH. 12. 
«μορίῳ, καὶ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἤδη ἐν στάσει ὄντες, ὅμως τρία μὲν ἔτη ἀντεῖχον 
στ Ξποῖς τε πρότερον ὑπάρχουσι πολεμίοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ Σικελίας μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ 

στῶν ξυμμάχων ἔτι τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀφεστηκόσι, Κύρῳ τε ὕστερον βασιλέως 

—nadi προσγενομένῳ, ὃς παρεῖχε χρήματα Πελοποννησίοις ἐς τὸ ναυτικόν" καὶ 

οὐ πρότερον ἐνέδοσαν ἣ αὐτοὶ ἐν σφίσι κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας διαφορὰς περιπεσόντες 
ἐσφάλησαν. 

1)* The three years may be reckoned from the outbreak of the 
revolution of Athens (411) to the coming down of Cyrus to the 
coast of Asia, which must then be put with Kriiger, not in 407, but 
in 408. 

The supposition 2), which at first sight might seem more 
natural, that the three years are to be dated from the descent of | 
Cyrus to the coast (407) to the end of the war (404), would not 
agree with the words ἐν στάσει ἤδη ὄντε. And the mention of the 
revolt of the allies (τῶν ξυμμάχων ἔτι τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀφεστηκόσιν) also 
points to the earlier period, when the chief defection took place. 

The text as it stands is not without difficulty; and we might be 
tempted to substitute a different number of years, if we knew 
exactly how the period of time intended by Thucydides was to be 
defined. The conjecture δέκα gives too long a time, for eight and 
a half years only intervened between the destruction of the Sicilian 
expedition (autumn of 413) and the taking of the city (spring of 
404). Cp. note on i. 57. 6. § 4. 

The words corresponding to τρία μὲν ἔτη are Κύρῳ te ὕστερον, if 
τρία be retained ; but if deca, or some other number, is substituted, 
μέν must be answered by καὶ οὐ πρότερον ἐνέδοσαν. 


τοσοῦτον τῷ Περικλεῖ ἐπερίσσευσε τότε, ἀφ᾽ ὧν αὐτὸς προέγνω καὶ πάνυ 65, 13. 
ἂν ῥᾳδίως περιγενέσθαι τῶν Πελοποννησίων αὐτῶν τῷ πολέμω. 


VOL. ἢ. K 


65. 13. 


87. 1. 


67. 2. 


68. 5. 


68. 7. 


72. 1. 


74. 3. 


130 THUCYDIDES. 


The meaning is either 1)* ‘so much more than sufficient were= 
the grounds which Pericles had’ (ἐπερίσσευσε, scil. ἐκεῖνα), or ‘SOE 
great an abundance of grounds had Pericles ’ (ἐπερίσσευσε, impers. ae 
scil. ἐκείνων). Or 2) ‘so much more than sufficient were the means 
at Pericles’ command.’ ἀφ᾽ ὧν according to 1)* goes with spotyrve,.- 
‘from which he foresaw,’ or ‘which enabled him to foresee. Ac— 
cording to 2) with περιγενέσθαι, ‘he foresaw that by their aid.’ 

αὐτός =‘ of himself,’ by his unaided foresight. 


καὶ ’Apyeios ἰδίᾳ Πόλλις. 
ἰδίᾳ, Argos being now neutral. 


μὴ διαβάντες ὡς βασιλέα Thy ἐκείνου πόλιν τὸ μέρος βλάψωσιν. 
Cp. Ar. Ach. 147,— 
καὶ τὸν πατέρ᾽ ἡντιβύλει βοηθεῖν τῇ πάτρᾳ, 
and note on ii. 29. 5. 


καὶ ἡλληνίσθησαν τὴν νῦν γλῶσσαν τότε πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αμπρακιωτῶν 
ξυνοικησάντων. 
Cp. note oni. 3. 4. 


οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Αμφίλοχοι, γενομένου τούτου, διδόασιν ἑαυτοὺς ᾿Ακαρνᾶσι, καὶ προσ- 
παρακαλέσαντες ἀμφότεροι ᾿Αθηναίους, οἱ αὐτοῖς Φορμίωνά τε στρατηγὸν 
ἔπεμψαν καὶ vais τριάκοντα, ἀφικομένου δὲ τοῦ Φορμίωνος, αἱροῦσι κατὰ 
κράτος “Apyos, καὶ τοὺς ᾿Αμπρακιώτας ἠνδραπόδισαν. 

δέ after ἀφικομένου Connects προσπαρακαλέσαντες with ἀφικομένου τοῦ 
Φορμίωνος, and indicates a slight opposition between the request 
for assistance and its actual arrival. 

αἱροῦσι, scil. the combined forces of the Amphilochians, Acarna- 
nians, and Athenians. 


εἰ δὲ μή, ἅπερ καὶ τὸ πρότερον ἤδη προὐκαλεσώμεθα, ἡσυχίαν ἄγετε x.7d. 

The occasion here mentioned, probably occurring at the be- 
ginning of the war, and perhaps referred to again iii. 68. 1 (but 
see note), is unknown. The words can hardly relate to the pro- 
clamation made by the Thebans in the course of their treacherous 
attempt (ii. 2 fin.) 


ξυγγνώμονες δέ ἐστε τῆς μὲν ἀδικίας κολάζεσθαι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι προτέρ- 
ous, τῆς δὲ τιμωρίας τυγχάνειν τοῖς ἐπιφέρουσι νομίμως. 


sot 


a 
u 


NOTES, BOOK 11]. 131 


"The datives ὑπάρχουσι, ἐπιφέρουσι, are governed by ξυγγνώμονες. 74. 3. 

ἜΣ ext whether ξυγγνώμουνες be taken in the strict meaning of ‘ pardon’ 

©xr im the general meaning of ‘consent,’ the construction with the 

cCizatiive gives a false sense in the first clause. ‘Consent to the 
first aggressors that they may be punished for their iniquity, and 
to those who are lawfully seeking vengeance that they may obtain 
it.” We expect rather, ‘Consent (to us) that the first aggressors 
may be punished for their iniquity ; a meaning which would require 
tae accusative, τοὺς ὑπάρχοντας προτέρους. But the love of parallelism 
prevails, and the sense of ξυγγνώμονες, requiring the dative when 
applied to the second and principal clause, prescribes the same 
C&@Se also to the first clause. The irregularity is partly due to the 
teridency to transfer to the subject what belongs to the verb: 
ἔυ γγνώμονές ἐστε κολάζεσθαι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι προτέροις Ξ- ξυγγνώμονές ἐστε 
τῷ κολάζεσθαι τοὺς ὑπάρχοντας προτέρους. 


καὶ οἱ Πλαταιῆς τοιόνδε τι ἐπινοοῦσι διελόντες τοῦ τείχους 7 προσέπιπτε 75. 6. 
τὸ χώμα ἐσεφόρουν τὴν γῆν. 

The question arises how the earth could have been drawn in 
through the wall if the combustibles were thrown into the space 
betwreen the mound and the wall, ii. 77 med. The answer is that 
the sanound was built, not close to the wall, but as near to it as the 
bei gers could advance without extreme danger; fresh material 
Was then thrown from the top so as to roll down towards the city. 
τὸ peezatd τοῦ τείχους καὶ τῆς προσχώσεως, li. 77 med. is the space 
between the wall and the highest part of the mound. 


και ἃ δοκοὺς μεγάλας ἀρτήσαντες ἁλύσεσι μακραῖς σιδηραῖς ἀπὸ τῆς τομῆς 76. 4. 
(art gsebey ἀπὸ κεραιῶν δύο ἐπικεκλιμένων καὶ ὑπερτεινουσῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
rly ress, ἀνελκύσαντες ἐγκαρσίας, ὁπότε προσπεσεῖσθαί πη μέλλοι ἡ μηχανή, 
She ray τὴν δυκὸν χαλαραῖς ταῖς ἁλύσεσι καὶ οὐ διὰ χειρὸς ἔχοντες. ἡ δὲ 
py, ἐμπίπτουσα ἀπεκαύλιζε τὸ προέχον τῆς ἐμβολῆς. 

Garg κεραιῶν (as well as ἀπὸ ris τομῆς, 80. τῶν δοκῶν) is to be taken 
with, ἀρτήσαντες. ov διὰ χειρὸς ἔχοντες seems to imply that the 

chains by which the beam was suspended, instead of being merely 
fastened to the ends of the projecting poles, passed down them, 
ad after being held there were suddenly let go, and dropped 
the beam. 


K 2 


77. 3. 


77. 4. 


79. 2. 


83. 3. 


132 THUCYDIDES. 


φοροῦντες δὲ ὕλης φακέλλους παρέβαλλον ἀπὸ τοῦ χώματος ἐς τὸ μεταξὺ 
πρῶτον τοῦ τείχους καὶ τῆς προσχώσεωφτ᾽ ταχὺ δὲ πλήρους γενομένου διὰ 
πολυχειρίαν, ἐπιπαρένησαν καὶ τῆς ἄλλης πόλεως ὅσον ἐδύναντο ἀπὸ τοῦ 
μετεώρου πλεῖστον ἐπισχεῖν. 

τῆς ἄλλης πόλεως ὅσον ἐδύναντο ἐπισχεῖν, 1)* the space, probably, 
between the new and old wall, at any rate on the other side of 
the old wall. ᾿ 

The other explanation 2) that the wood was heaped up outside 
the wall to the right and left of the mound as far as it could be 
thrown (the besiegers being unable to approach close to the wall 
for fear of projectiles,) is inconsistent @) with τῆς ἄλλης πόλεως ὅσον 
ἐδύναντο ἐπισχεῖν, 5) with the great effects attributed to the con- 
flagration just below. 


ἤδη yap ἐν ὄρεσιν ὕλη τριφθεῖσα tn’ ἀνέμων πρὸς αὑτὴν ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου 
πῦρ καὶ φλόγα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀνῆκεν. 

ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, scil. 1)" ἀπὸ τοῦ τριφθῆναι, OF 2) ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρός, ‘ kindled 
and then blazed.’ 


ἐλθόντες δὲ ὑπὸ Σπάρτωλον τὴν Βοττικὴν τὸν σῖτον διέφθειραν. 

Spartolus was in Botticé, not in Bottia or Bottiaea; but it is 
called ἡ Βοττική, because its founders came from Bottia, cp. ii. 99, 
ἀναστήσαντες μάχῃ .. . ἐκ τῆς Borrias καλουμένης Borriaious, of νῦν 
ὅμοροι Χαλκιδέων οἰκοῦσι. 


ἐπειδὴ μέντοι ἀντιπαραπλέοντάς τε ἑώρων αὐτούς, παρὰ γῆν σφῶν κομι- 
ζομένων, καί, ἐκ Πατρῶν τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας πρὸς τὴν ἀντιπέρας ἤπειρον διαβαλ- 
λόντων ἐπὶ ᾿Ακαρνανίας, κατεῖδον τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἀπὸ τῆς Χαλκίδος καὶ 
τοῦ Ἑὐήνον ποταμοῦ προσπλέοντας σφίσι, καὶ οὐκ ἔλαθον νυκτὸς ὑφορ- 
μισάμενοι, οὕτω δὴ ἀναγκάζονται ναυμαχεῖν κατὰ μέσον τὸν πορθμόν. 

Instead of αὐτοὶ κομιζόμενοι we have σφῶν κομιζομένων, the action 
expressed by the participle being really subordinate, not to ἑώρων, 
but to ἀντιπαραπλέοντας. In the same manner διαβαλλόντων in the 
next clause is subordinate, not to κατεῖδον, but to προσπλέοντας, The 
construction brings out the fact that the movements of the Athe- 
nians depended on those of the Peloponnesians. ‘As the Pelo- 
ponnesians coasted along, the Athenians did the same; when the 
Peloponnesians tried to cross, the Athenians went to meet them.’ 


NOTES, BOOK I. 133 


καὶ οὐκ ἔλαθον κιτλ. 1)* The Athenians, who were determined that 88. 3. 
the Peloponnesians should not cross the open sea outside the 
gulf without a battle, coasted along the northern shore opposite 
to them. The Peloponnesians, hoping to evade them, ‘secretly lay 
to at nightfall ;’ that the Athenians not perceiving them to have 
stopped might go on and pass them; and when they thought 
that the Athenians were far in advance, they attempted to cross 
over to the opposite shore. They would still have had to fight, 
but not in the open sea, where they could be attacked on all sides, 
and where the superior skill of the Athenians would tell (ii. 89 fin.) 
But the manceuvre had been detected, the Athenians bore down upon 
them from the opposite coast, and they had to fight in mid-channel. 

ἔλαθον is pluperfect in sense, as in vi. 97. 1 (see note), of δὲ ᾿Αθη- 
patos ταύτης τῆς νυκτὸς τῇ ἐπιγιγνομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξητάζοντο, καὶ ἔλαθον αὐτοὺς 
παντὶ ἤδη τῷ στρατεύματι ἐκ τῆς Κατάνης σχόντες κατὰ τὸν Λέοντα καλού- 
μενον κιτὰλ. , 

2) The words οὐκ ἔλαθον νυκτὸς ὑφορμισάμενοι will not bear the 
sense given to them by Grote, ‘it did not escape the notice of 
the Athenians, that the Peloponnesians had taken up a simulated 
or feigned (ὑφ-) night station ;’ i.e. that they intended to slip 
anchor, and get across to the opposite shore past the enemy in 
the course of the night. 


καὶ τροπαῖον στήσαντες ἐπὶ τῷ ‘Pip καὶ ναῦν ἀναθέντες τῷ Ποσειδῶνι 84. 4. 
ἀνεχώρησαν ἐς Ναύπακτον. 

Cp. Aristoph. Knights, 551, 561 foll. (represented in 424, five 
years afterwards),— 

ἵππὶ ἄναξ Πόσειδον... 
ὦ Tepaiorce παῖ Κρόνου, 
Φορμίωνί τε φίλτατ᾽ ἐκ 

τῶν ἄλλων τε θεῶν ᾿Αθη- 
ναίοις πρὸς τὸ παρεστώς. 

Cp. also the fragments of the Ταξίαρχοι of Eupolis, in which 
Phormio, in the character of a general of the old school, seems 
to be represented as censuring Bacchus for his effeminacy, and 
Aristoph. Peace, 347,— 

πολλὰ yap ἠνεσχόμην 
πραγματά τε καὶ στιβάδας, ἂς ἔλαχε Φορμίων. 


87. 1. 


87. 3. 


134 THUCYDIDES. 


Ἢ μὲν γενομένη ναυμαχία, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἰελοποννήσιοι, ef τις ἄρα δι 
αὐτὴν ὑμῶν φοβεῖται τὴν μέλλουσαν, οὐχὶ δικαίαν ἔχει τέκμαρσιν τὸ 
ἐκφοβῆσαι. 

οὐχὶ δικαίαν «rd. Lit. either 1) ‘does not allow in the alarm 
which it creates of any just inference,’ i.e. you cannot argue from 
your fears: τὸ ἐκφοβῆσαι being the more immediate, and τόκμαρσεν 
the remoter object of ἔχει. 

Or 2)* ‘does not allow of any just inference touching its 
alarming you,’ or ‘that it should alarm you.’ τὸ ἐκφοβῆσαι is an 
accusative of the remoter object, like rd λέγεσθαι in viii. 87. 3 (see 
note), ἄλλοι δ᾽ ὡς καταβοῆς ἕνεκα τῆς ἐς Λακεδαίμονα, τὸ λέγεσθαι, ὡς 
οὐκ ἀδικεῖ ἀλλὰ καὶ σαφῶς οἴχεται ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς ἀληθῶς πεπληρωμόνας. 
Cp. Sophocles, O. T. 1416,— 

ἀλλ᾽ ὧν ἐπαιτεῖς ἐς δέον πάρεσθ᾽ ὅδε 
Κρέων τὸ πράσσειν καὶ τὸ βουλεύειν. 

For similar accusatives, sometimes called ‘ accusatives of re- 
ference,’ cp. ii. 53 med. καὶ τὸ μὲν προσταλαιπωρεῖν τῷ δόξαντι 
καλῷ οὐδεὶς πρόθυμος ἦν: iii. 82 med. ἀσφάλεια δὲ τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι 
ἀποτροπῆς πρόφασις εὔλογος : vii. 36 med. τῇ τε πρότερον ἀμαθίᾳ τῶν 
κυβερνητῶν δοκούσῃ εἶναι, τὸ ἀντίπρωρον ξυγκροῦσαι (if such be the true 
reading in this and the preceding passage): vii. 67 init. τῆς δοκήσεως 
προσγεγενημένης αὐτῷ, τὸ κρατίστους εἶναι, εἰ τοὺς κρατίστους ἐνικήσαμεν, 
διπλασία ἑκάστου ἡ ἐλπίς. ᾿ 

Poppo (ed. maj. on vii. 86. 5) well explains the so-called 
‘accusative of reference’ as an accusative of ‘ more precise defini- 
tion,’ or of ‘the remoter object.’ vii. 36 med., 67 init. are instances 
of the former, ii. 53 med. of the latter; but it is hard to see how 
τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι in iii. 82 med. if the reading be correct, can be 
explained save as an accusative of simple reference. For instances 
from other authors see Jelf, 670. 1. 2. 

ὥστε ov κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν κακίαν τὸ ἡσσῆσθαι προσεγένετο, οὐδὲ δίκαιον 
τῆς γνώμης τὸ μὴ κατὰ κράτος νικηθέν, ἔχον δέ τινα ἐν αὑτῷ ἀντιλογίαν, 
τῆς ξυμφορᾶς τῷ ἀποβάντι ἀμβλύνεσθαι, νομίσαι δὲ ταῖς μὲν τύχαις ἐνδέ- 
χεσθαι σφάλλεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ταῖς δὲ γνώμαις τοὺς αὐτοὺς dat 
ἀνδρείους ὀρθῶς εἶναι, καὶ μὴ ἀπειρίαν, τοῦ ἀνδρείου παρόντος, προβαλλο- 
μένους εἰκότως ἂν ἕν τινι κακοὺς γενέσθαι. 


The context shows that τῆς γνώμης is not to be taken as a 


NOTES, BOOK II. 135 


partitive genitive. Not, ‘that part of our mind which was not 87. 3. 
conquered,’ but ‘the unconquered quality of our mind,’ ‘ our mind 
unconquered (aor.) by that reverse.’ For Thucydides is not opposing 
one part of the mind to another, but the mind in its own invincible 
nature to the accidental defeat which the Peloponnesians have 
sustained. The use of μή is explained by the subjective character 
of the phrase, ‘what we know to be the unconquered quality,’ etc. 
κατὰ xparos, ‘by way of force,’ i.e. by superiority of mere force. 

τῆς ξυμφορᾶς τῷ ἀποβάντι, ‘by the result of what has been an 
accident,’ or ‘by the accidental result,’ opposed to τῆς γνώμης... 
wien ber. 

ταῖς δὲ γνώμαις «.r.A, ‘but that in their minds, while men remain 
the same’ (as opposed to their circumstances, which change) 
‘they should always be brave.’ ὀρθῶς εἶναι is equivalent to δεῖν 
εἶναι, the idea of δεῖν answering to ἐνδέχεσθαι in the previous clause. 
(Classen.) 


τῶνδε δὲ ἡ ἐπιστήμη, ἣν μάλιστα φοβεῖσθε, ἀνδρείαν μὲν ἔχουσα, καὶ 87. 4. 
μνήμην ἔξει ἐν τῷ δεινῷ ἐπιτελεῖν ἃ ἔμαθεν, ἄνευ δὲ εὐψυχίας οὐδεμία 
τέχνη πρὸς τοὺς κινδύνους ἰσχύει᾽ φόβος γὰρ μνήμην ἐκπλήσσει, τέχνη δὲ 
ἄνευ ἀλκῆς οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ. 

ἄνευ ἀλκῆς is not a repetition of ἄνευ εὐψυχίας : ἀλκή means the 
actual display of bravery which is the result of εὐψυχία. ‘ Skill 
is of no use without bravery. For without bravery men forget, 
and, if they forget, their skill is unaccompanied by prowess in 
action, and is therefore useless.’ Cp. Plato, Rep. iv. 429 Ὁ, 
σωτηρίαν ἔγωγ᾽, εἶπον, λέγω τινὰ εἶναι τὴν ἀνδρείαν. ποίαν δὴ σωτηρίαν - 
τὴν τῆς δόξης τῆς ὑπὸ νόμου διὰ τῆς παιδείας γεγονυίας περὶ τῶν δεινῶν, ἅ 
τέ ἐστι καὶ οἷα. 

καὶ ὅσα ἡμάρτομεν πρότερον, νῦν αὐτὰ ταῦτα προσγενόμενα διδασκαλίαν 87. 7, 


(4 


παρέξει, 
προσγενόμενα, ‘ being added,’ i.e. to the advantages enumerated 


before. ‘Our very mistakes will be additional advantages.’ The 
idea of ‘advantage’ is not contained in προσγενόμενα, but is gathered 
from the context. Cp. ii. 65 fin. Κύρῳ re ὕστερον βασιλέως παιδὶ 
προσγενομένῳ, where προσγενομένῳ, in the same way, means ‘added 
to their previous enemies.’ 


146 THUCYDIDES. 


89. 2. οὗτοι yap πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τὸ προνενικῆσθαι, καὶ μηδὲ αὐτοὶ οἴεσθαι Succ > κε 
ἡμῖν εἶναι, τὸ πλῆθος τῶν νεῶν καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου παρεσκευάσαντο. 
καί joins the substantive τὸ πλῆθος with the adverbial expression. — ==“ 
οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου, ‘they have equipped this great fleet, and (made ==> ἘΞ 
preparation) on so unequal a scale.’ 


89.2. ἔπειτα ᾧ μάλιστα πιστεύοντες προσέρχονται, ὡς προσῆκον ohicw —=»>™ 
ἀνδρείοις εἶναι, od δι’ ἄλλο τι θαρσοῦσιν 4 διὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ πεζῷ ἐμπειρίαν ὰ EE 


πλείω κατορθοῦντες, καὶ οἴονται σφίσι καὶ ἐν τῷ ναυτικῷ ποιήσειν τὸ αὐτό. -Ξ 


The grammatical antecedent to ᾧ is an " accusativus pendens,’ «= 
‘as to that on which they trust,’ which is resumed in od δὲ ἄλλο τι να 
θαρσοῦσι, taking up πιστεύοντες. The antecedent in thought may be =>< 
gathered either 1)* from ὡς προσῆκον. .. εἶναι, or 2) from διὰ rw... - 
κατορθοῦντες, The ground of their confidence is either 1)* the courage = 
which they believe to be natural to them, or 2) their experience = 
and consequent success by land. The second explanation is some- _ 
what more grammatical than the first, for according to 1) the = 
antecedent has to be gathered from a clause which is itself Ἃ 
dependent on @ . . . προσέρχονται. 

a 


καὶ οἴονται Simply carries on the main sentence from οὐ & ἄλλο τι 
θαρσοῦσι, and need not be made equivalent grammatically to καὶ 
οἰόμενοι, as by Arnold, although logically, like the preceding par- 
ticiple κατορθοῦντες, it supplies part of the reason why the Athenians 
are confident. 


89.3. τὸ 8 ἐκ τοῦ δικαίου ἡμῖν μᾶλλον νῦν περιέσται, εἴπερ καὶ τούτοις ἐν 
ἐκείνῳ, 
τὸ δέ, scil. ‘success,’ gathered from κατορθοῦντες and ποιήσειν τὸ 
αὐτό. περιέσται, ‘will be found to remain with us.’ 


89. 4. ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐπεχείρησαν ἡσσηθέντες παρὰ πολὺ αὖθις ναυμαχεῖν. 
5. μὴ δὴ αὐτῶν τὴν τόλμαν δείσητε. πολὺ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐκείνοις πλείω φόβον 
παρέχετε καὶ πιστότερον κατά τε τὸ προνενικηκέναι. καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἂν 
ἡγοῦνται μὴ μέλλοντάς τι ἄξιον τοῦ παρὰ πολὺ πράξειν ἀνθίστασθαι ἡμᾶς. 
τοῦ παρὰ πολύ, SCil. νενικηκέναι, referring to προνενικηκέναι, and also to 
ἡσσηθέντες παρὰ πολύ above. 


89. 6. ἀντίπαλοι μὲν γὰρ οἱ πλείους, ὥσπερ οὗτοι, τῇ δυνάμει τὸ πλέον πίσυνοι 


NOTES, BOOK ΠΤ. 137 


FR στῇ γνώμῃ ἐπέρχονται" οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ πολλῴ ὑποδεεστέρων καὶ dua οὐκ dvay- 89. 6. 
meee (Spero μέγα τι τῆς διανοίας τὸ βέβαιον ἔχοντες ἀντιτολμῶσιν. 

1) We may take οἱ πλείους for ‘the superior force’ and ἀντίπαλοι 
<> ‘facing the enemy,’ a meaning which is somewhat doubtful. 

Or better 2)*, ‘For most men when they are a match for the 
<= ‘nemy,’ etc. Thus ἀντίπαλοι, as we should expect from its position, 
—wewill correspond in meaning to of δ᾽ ἐκ πολλῷ ὑποδεεστέρων in the 
«=lause which follows. Although the Peloponnesians were in fact 

Ear superior in number, there is no objection to their being de- 
s=acribed as only. ‘a match for’ their enemies, no more being required 
“Wy the argument. 


διέκπλοι τε οὐκ εἰσὶν οὐδὲ ἀναστροφαί, ἅπερ νεῶν ἄμεινον πλεουσῶν 89. 8. 
@pya ἐστίν. 

ἀναστροφή, probably ‘a turning to charge,’ which might be 
made after either rowing round a ship (περίπλους), or backing water 


>» 


({avdxpovois). 


of δὲ Πελοποννήσιοι, ἐπειδὴ αὐτοῖς of ᾿Αθηναῖοι οὐκ ἐπέπλεον ἐς τὸν OO, I. 
κόλπον καὶ τὰ στενά, βουλόμενοι ἄκοντας ἔσω προαγαγεῖν αὐτούς, ἀναγό- 
μενοι ἅμα ἕῳ ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τεσσάρων ταξάμενοι τὰς ναῦς ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν 
γῆν ἔσω ἐπὶ τοῦ κόλπου, δεξιῷ κέρᾳ ἡγουμένῳ ὥσπερ καὶ ὥρμουν" ἐπὶ δ᾽ 
αὐτῷ εἴκοσιν ἔταξαν τὰς ἄριστα πλεούσας, ὅπως, εἰ ἄρα νομίσας ἐπὶ τὴν 
Ναύπακτον αὐτοὺς πλεῖν 6 Φορμίων κιτὰλ. 

ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν γῆν x.r.A. The meaning which we expect to find 
in this passage is that which is given to it by Grote, who supposes 
that the Peloponnesians began to sail (ἔπλεον) from the southern 
coast to the northern. They wanted to draw the Athenians within 
the gulf, that they might surround or cut them off, and this could 
be accomplished by threatening Naupactus. Accordingly he 
accepts the conjecture τὴν ἐκεΐνων γῆν, which he explains to mean 
‘the shore of the enemy,’ i.e. the shore to be protected by the 
Athenian fleet. But such an explanation is of course inconsistent 
with ἑαυτῶν; and the substitution of ἑαυτῶν for ἐκείνων in all the 
MSS. is not easily explainable. 

Three other views of the passage may be taken. 1) ἐπί has been 
supposed to mean ‘along.’ But this is impossible. In the passage 


90. I. 


138 THUCYDIDES. 


viii. 101. 3, διὰ ταχέων ἀπαίρουσιν ἐκ τῆς Χίου ov πελάγιαε. . . ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀριστέρᾳ τὴν Λέσβον ἔχοντες ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τὴν ἤπειρον, Which has re 
quoted in confirmation of the supposed use, the ordinary meanir— 
of ἐπί, as the map will show, is appropriate. (See note.) 

2) Classen connects the words ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν γῆν with ταξάμενοι" 
‘drawing up their ships four deep, with the coast behind them 7 
But ταξάμενοι ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν γῆν is a harsh and obscure expression 
and ἐπί in such a connection should mean that the ships hac 
their prows turned towards the coast, not from it. 

3)* The best solution of the difficulty is to read παρά with —™ 
the Laurentian, and τὴ (Bekker’s G), and with two inferior MSS. éxi, 
which here occurs five times within as many lines, may have caught 
the eye of the transcriber, and in one place have been substituted 
for παρά, 

Grote objects that the Peloponnesians could not have sailed 
‘along their own coast,’ for in that case a) they would not have 
threatened Naupactus; δ) a second movement, across the gulf, 
would have been necessary before they could intercept the Athe- 
nian squadron in the manner described by Thucydides. But a) 
the Peloponnesian fleet, by coasting: along the north shore of 
Peloponnesus in a north-east direction from the promontory of 
Rhium (see the map) would be moving nearly in the direction of 
Naupactus, to which, after following the coast to its most northern 
point, it would be easy to strike across. Such a movement along 
the southern coast inside the gulf was quite enough to alarm the 
Athenians. (See Sheppard and Evans, App.i. 3.) ὁ) The alteration 
of their direction in crossing the gulf, if any, may have been so 
slight that there was no need for Thucydides to say anything 
further of their movements until he describes the manceuvre by 
which they tried to cut off the Athenians. Or c) if the Pelopon- 
nesians, after following their own coast for a time, suddenly struck 
northwards across the gulf, this movement would be sufficiently 
described by the words ἄῴνω ἐπιστρέψαντες τὰς vais μετωπηδὸν ἔπλεον 
just below. The whole distance from coast to coast is not much 
more than four miles, and if a trireme in still water, and in action, 
could row at the rate of ten knots (about 114 miles) an hour (see 
Warre, Ancient Naval Tactics, p. 11; 150 knots are a long days’ 


NOTES, BOOK II. 139 


—eighteen hours’—journey ; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 2) the cross move- 90. rf. 
Ment might have been effected in about twenty minutes. 


ὀπιδιώκοντες δὲ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ras re ἐγγὺς οὔσας μάλιστα ναῦς ἔλαβον ἕξ, 92. 2. 
καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀφεΐλοντο, ἃς ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς τῇ γῇ διαφθείραντες τὸ πρῶτον 
ἀνεδήσαντο. 

Thucydides does not tell us what became of the main body of 
the Peloponnesian fleet numbering fifty-seven, which had originally 
driven ashore the nine Athenian vessels. Yet it is clear that these 
ships must have taken part in the second as well as in the first 
engagement; else how could the Athenians have recovered the 
vessels which they had towed off? And the whole Peloponnesian 
fleet is afterwards said to have retired to Corinth, The Pelopon- 
nesians must have quitted the Athenian ships which they had taken 
in order to assist their defeated comrades. 


οὔτε γὰρ ναυτικὸν ἦν προφυλάσσον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐδέν, οὔτε προσδοκία 98, 3. 
οὐδεμία, μὴ dy ποτε of πολέμιοι ἐξαπιναίως οὕτως ἐπιπλεύσειαν" ἐπεὶ οὔτ᾽ 
ἀπὸ τοῦ προφανοῦς τολμῆσαι ἂν καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν, οὐδέ, εἰ διενοοῦντο, μὴ 
οὐκ ἂν προαισθέσθαι. 

The MSS. read οὐδέ----οὐδέ. It is best to substitute οὔτε in the 
first place (since οὐδέ---οὐδέ is never found unless there is some 
special emphasis on the negative in the first as well as in the second 
clause, cp. Jelf, 776. 2.) and to retain οὐδέ in the second. 

ἐπεὶ οὔτ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ προφανοῦς x.r.d., 1)* ‘since the enemy would not, 
in their opinion, deliberately (καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν) venture upon an open 
attack,’ opposed to an attempt at surprise (μὴ ἂν ἐξαπιναίως οὕτως 
ἐπιπλεύσειαν) The words will in this case refer to the improbable 
event of a formal and regular attack upon the Piraeus by sea;. 
which no one expected at the time, although provision had been 
made for it by a reserve of ships and money, ii. 24. 

Or 2) ἀπὸ τοῦ προφανοῦς τολμῆσαι ἄν being the resumption of μὴ 
dy ἐξαπιναίως οὕτως ἐπιπλεύσειαν, and καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν, ‘without the inter- 
ference of the Athenians’ being taken as the predicate, ‘the enemy 
would not make such an open attack, if he ventured, without being 
opposed.’ 

οὐδὲ ef διενοοῦντο «.r.A., ‘nor indeed if they were entertaining such 


93. 3. 


θά. 1. 


96. 3. 


97. 3. 


140 THUCYDIDES. 


a design would the Athenians have failed to detect it in time ;’ 
οὐδέ emphasizes the last clause, ‘no, nor would they,’ etc. 


φρυκτοί τε ἤροντο πολέμιοι «.7.A. 
‘Fire signals indicating danger from an enemy.’ Cp. iii. 22 fin. 


ἀνίστη δὲ καὶ ᾿Αγριᾶνας καὶ Λαιαίους καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα ἔθνη Παιονικά, ὧν 
ἦρχε" καὶ ἔσχατοι τῆς ἀρχῆς οὗτοι ἦσαν μέχρι Τρααίων ἸΙαιόνων καὶ τοῦ 
Στρυμόνος ποταμοῦ, ὃς ἐκ τοῦ Σκόμβρου ὄρους διὰ Γρααίων καὶ Λαιαίων ῥεῖ, 
οὗ ὡρίζετο ἡ ἀρχὴ τὰ πρὸς Παίονας αὐτονόμους ἤδη. 

According to the text of Poppo and Bekker, which has been 
adopted in the translation, we must suppose that the Graaeans 
and Laeaeans dwelt on both sides of the Strymon, and that the 
dominions of Sitalces extended to the Laeaeans dwelling on the left 
bank of the Strymon, but not to any of the Graaeans, the word 
μέχρι excluding them, and οὗ denoting the line of the Strymon 
and the eastern boundary of the Graaean territory. 

The best attested reading is μέχρι Τρααίων καὶ Λαιαίων Παιόνων. 
But we cannot suppose Thucydides to have written καὶ ἔσχατοι τῆς 
ἀρχῆς οὗτοι (including of Λαίαιοι) ἦσαν μέχρι... . Λαιαίων Παιόνων. Some 
emendation of the text, such as the omission of καὶ Λαιαίων, which 
was probably introduced from the succeeding line, therefore 
becomes necessary. Besides minor variations, a few MSS., in- 
cluding the Laurentian, insert γάρ after μέχρι. γάρ, however, makes 
no sense, unless with Arnold we omit οὗ before apifero. But it is 
very unlikely that οὗ should have been inserted in all the MSS., 
though not improbable that ydp may have arisen out of a repetition 
of the yp following. 


φόρος τε ἐκ πάσης τῆς BapBdpov καὶ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων, ὅσον 
προσῆξαν ἐπὶ Σεύθου, ὃς ὕστερον Σιτάλκου βασιλεύσας πλεῖστον δὴ ἐποίησε, 
τετρακοσίων ταλάντων ἀργυρίον μάλιστα δύναμις, ἃ χρυσὸς καὶ ἄργυρος 
εἴη. 

ἃ εἴη, τ)" ‘whatever was gold and silver,’ i.e. reckoning only gold 
and silver, exclusive of other kinds of tribute. Or 2) the optative 


is ‘iterative,’ ‘what year by year was gold and silver.’ Cp. i. 99 


fin, καὶ rate δὼ ᾿Αθηναίοις ηὔξετο τὸ ναυτικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς δαπάνης ἣν ἐκεῖνοι 


NOTES, BOOK II. 141 


ob μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἐς τὴν ἄλλην εὐβουλίαν καὶ ξύνεσιν περὶ τῶν παρόντων ἐς 97. 6. 
“Ἔ -ὧὉἔν βίον ἄλλοις ὁμοιοῦνται. 
τῶν παρόντων ἐς τὸν βίον, ‘the things which exist for the purposes 
«<—>f life.’ Compare τῶν és χρῆσιν φανερῶν, ii. 62 init. The meaning 
ms, not that the Scythians are without acuteness in the ordinary 
“Wousiness of life, but that they are not acute enough to turn to the 
“West advantage, like more civilized nations, what nature supplies. 


ὅπως κατὰ κορνφὴν ἐσβαλοῦσιν ἐς τὴν κάτω Μακεδονίαν, ἧς ὁ Περδίκκας 99, 1. 
ἦρχε, τῶν γὰρ Μακεδόνων εἰσὶ καὶ Λυγκησταὶ καὶ ᾿Ελιμιῶται καὶ ἄλλα ἔθνη 
ἐπάνωθεν κιτὰλ. 

τῶν γάρ, ‘for, besides the lower Macedonians, there are also 


Macedonians in the upper country, amongst whom are included 
the Lyncestians and Elimiots. 


ἐκράτησαν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ot Μακεδόνες οὗτοι, ἃ καὶ viv ἔτι 99. 6. 
ἔχουσι, τόν τε ᾿Ανθεμοῦντα καὶ Τρηστωνίαν καὶ Βισαλτίαν καὶ Μακεδόνων 
αὐτῶν πολλήν. 

οἱ Μακεδόνες οὗτοι are the tribes which first acknowledged the 
leadership of the Temenidae, and who under their rule afterwards 
Conquered the whole of Lower Macedonia. The Μακεδόνες αὐτοί 
are the Macedonians originally so called before the conquests of 
the Temenidae. of Μακεδόνες οὗτοι of ch. 100 init. are all the 
Macedonians ruled by Perdiccas, including, with the exception of 
the partially independent Macedonians of the upper country 
(ii. 99 init.), the ‘ original Macedonians.’ 


καὶ τἄλλα διεκόσμησε (scil. ᾿Αρχέλαος) τά τε κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἵπποις 100. 2. 
καὶ ὅπλοις καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ παρασκευῇ κρείσσονι ἣ ξύμπαντες οἱ ἄλλοι 
βασιλῆς ὀκτὼ οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι. ’ 

The position of ὀκτώ is peculiar ; it is a kind of afterthought, and 
is equivalent to of ὀκτὼ ἦσαν. Cp. with Poppo, ii. 92 init. τάς re 
ἐγγὺς οὔσας μάλιστα vais ἔλαβον ἔξ: viii. 41 fin. ἐπὶ τὰς τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων 
vais εἴκοσιν. The Archelaus here mentioned is the same at whose 


court Euripides resided, and whose crimes are described by Plato, 
Gorg. 471. 


100. 2. 


100. 4. 


100. 6. 


102. 4. 


142 THUCYDIDES. 


τά τε κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον x.r.A. Lit. ‘he improved the state of the 
country generally, and (strengthened) its military force with cavalry 
and arms and other munitions of war.’ 


ἔσω δὲ τούτων ἐς τὴν Βοττιαίαν καὶ Πιερίαν οὐκ ἀφίκοντο. 
Bottiaea, the same country as that called Bottia in ch. 99 above. 
Cp. note on ii. 79. 2. 


καὶ ἣ μὲν προσπέσοιεν, οὐδεὶς ὑπέμενεν ἄνδρας ἱππέας re ἀγαθοὺς καὶ 
τεθωρακισμένους᾽ ὑπὸ δὲ πλήθους περικλῃόμενοι αὑτοὺς πολλαπλασίῳ τῷ 
ὁμίλῳ ἐς κίνδυνον καθίστασαν. 

πολλαπλασίῳ τῷ ὁμίλῳ is a repetition and expansion οἱ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
πλήθους. The dative 1)* expresses the cause, ‘by reason of the 
enemy’s number, being many times their own,’ Or 2) ὁμίλῳ is in 
the dative, as if after ἐμάχοντο implied in αὑτοὺς ἐς κίνδυνον καθίστασαν, 
‘against a multitude,’ etc. 


τό Te yap ῥεῦμά ἐστι μέγα καὶ πολὺ καὶ θολερόν, ai τε νῆσοι πυκναί, καὶ 
ἀλλήλαις τῆς προσχώσεως τῷ μὴ σκεδάννυσθαι σύνδεσμοι γίγνονται, 
παραλλὰξ καὶ οὐ κατὰ στοῖχον κείμεναι, οὐδ᾽ ἔχουσαι εὐθείας διόδους τοῦ 
ὕδατος ἐς τὸ πέλαγος. 

τῷ μὴ σκεδάννυσθαι, SC. τὴν πρόσχωσιν, ‘by the accumulation of 
earth not scattering,’ instrumental dative. There is no reason to 
read τὸ μή or to adopt the conjecture τοῦ μή. ἀλλήλαις in ἀλλήλαις 
ξύνδεσμοι γίγνονται is a ‘ dativus commodi;’ ‘ they help one another 
to bind the earth together.’ 


APPENDIX. 


THE PLAGUE. 


GExERAL and also particular symptoms of the plague at Athens 
recorded by Thucydides. 

It was epidemic, 48. 1; and also contagious, 51. 4. It was 
said in former times to have ravaged Lemnos and other places, 
47. 3. It was brought from Ethiopia and Egypt to Persia and 
Greece, 48. 1; and first appeared in the Piraeus in the second 
spring of the war, 48. 2; at its commencement it was attributed to 
the poisoning of the cisterns by the Peloponnesians, 48. 2, as the 
Black Death to the poisoning of the wells by the Jews. It was most 
fatal in crowded places, especially in Athens, 54. 5, but scarcely 
found its way into the Peloponnesus. It destroyed more than one- 
seventh of the citizen hoplites, and a fourth of the knights, iii. 
87. 3; and in forty days there had fallen victims to it more than 
a fourth of Hagnon’s division of the army serving before Potidaea, 
ii. 58. 3. It lasted in all three years, at first for two years from 
the spring of 430 to the spring of 428; then reappearing after a 
partial cessation of a year and a half in the winter of 427-426, and 
continuing a third year, iii. 87. 1. It was incurable, or at any 
rate was never understood by the physicians; and the remedies 
which did good to one did harm to another, 51. 2. It passed 
through the body from head to foot. The patient when recovered 
was rarely, if ever, affected a second time, and never fatally, 51. 6. 
The summer in which it appeared was generally healthy; any 
other diseases were converted into it or absorbed in it, 49. 1; 
51.1. The plague was attended by the usual accompaniments 
of great epidemics, despondency and moral depravity, 51. 4; 53. 

More precise symptoms were :— 

Intense heat about the head. 

Redness and inflammation of the eyes. 

Bleeding of the throat and tongue. 

Foul breath. 


144 THUCYDIDES. 


Sneezing and hoarseness. 

In the next stage the disorder attacked the lungs, and was 
accompanied by a violent cough. 

It then descended into the stomach, causing painful vomitings ; 
then followed ineffectual retching and convulsions. The skin was 
reddish and livid, breaking out in small pustules and ulcers. 
Externally the heat was not very great, but internally excessive. 
The thirst and restlessness were intolerable and unceasing: the 
patient desired nothing so much as to tear off his clothes and 
throw himself into cold water. Meanwhile the strength was in- 
creased rather than weakened by the disease. At last, about the 
seventh or ninth day, came the end, produced by internal fever, 
or somewhat later, in those who survived this stage, by ulcer- 
ation of the bowels, and by weakness supervening on diarrhoea. 
Loss of eyesight and gangrene of the extremities were of frequent 
occurrence in the case of those who recovered. Many of the 
survivors, when they rose from their beds, seemed to have for- 
gotten all things. 

Hippocrates, who at the commencement of the Peloponnesian 
war was probably about thirty years of age, is said by his bio- 
graphers to have been an eyewitness of the plague: and his 
services on the occasion are duly chronicled in a spurious decree 
of the Athenians. His critics have generally supposed that a 
description of the plague at Athens is to be found in the Epidemics 
(Book iii.) which pass under his name. But the same ingenuity 
which invented the spurious decree, and also the panegyrical 
oration in which Hippocrates is celebrated, would have no difficulty 
in imagining that the father of medicine must have been present at 
a time when his services were so greatly needed. And the dis- 
orders described in the third book of the Epidemics bear but a 
slight resemblance to the plague of Athens, and only in a few 
superficial features. The writer of that book seems to be describing 
not one but many forms of malignant disease which prevailed 
chiefly at Perinthus: and he nowhere speaks of any great or 
general epidemic. 

That Hippocrates witnessed the plague of Athens is.very probable, 
though not established by historical evidence. But that he or any 


APPENDIX. 145 


«-ontemporary physician should have written upon epidemics and 
nave omitted to mention the great epidemic of all, which was so 
~wwvidely spread, and of so definite a character, is nearly impossible. 
fence we are driven to the conclusion that the treatise on Epidemics 
“was not really written by Hippocrates, unless we may suppose 
tehat an account of the plague at Athens was to be found in some 
portion of the work now lost. Not much importance is to be 
zattached to the non-occurrence of his name in Thucydides, who 
Tas omitted the names of many other distinguished contemporaries, 
«.g. Herodotus, Socrates, Phidias. 

No description of the plague in any medical or other writer 
as to be compared with that of Thucydides. His narration is 
<onceived in the same spirit as the rest of his history. He 
discards theories and describes the actual facts; he gives ‘the 
Symptoms by which any one who knows them beforehand may 
Jecognise the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was myself 

=ittacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others.’ And it is not a 
Mere fancy to suppose that he was one of those who, ‘having 
Fecovered, tended the sick and dying with pitying care,’ though in 
his impersonal manner he says nothing of himself individually. 

His description has had many imitators; Lucretius, vi. 1138- 
1286 is nearly a translation, and should be compared throughout ; 
the poetical version is generally accurate, though not free from 
Mnisunderstandings of the original. See Munro’s Notes on Lucre- 
ius, vi. 1138-1286. One or two traits of Thucydides, or more 
Probably of Lucretius, appear in Virgil’s account of the cattle 
Plague, Georg. iii. 478 ff. Many more are found in the description 
Of the mythical plague which afflicted the inhabitants of Aegina 

(Ovid, Metam. vii. 520 ff., who imitates Lucretius and Virgil as well 
as Thucydides). A still nearer parallel is found in the description 
by Diodorus (xiv. 71) of the plague which raged in the Cartha- 
ginian army when besieging Syracuse in 395 B.c. Some of the 
symptoms as well as the turns of rhetoric seem to be borrowed 
from Thucydides. Slighter traces of Thucydides are found in the 
description given by Livy (xxv. 26) of another plague which 
similarly afflicted the Roman and Carthaginian army in the siege 
of Syracuse under Marcellus, 212 B.c. The great plague in the 
VOL. IL L 


146 THUCYDIDES. 


time of M. Aurelius, of which Galen was a contemporary witness, 
nearly resembles the plague of Athens in several of its symptoms, 
such as the cough, the eruptions, the internal ulcerations, the 
redness of the mouth, and foulness of breath (Method. Med. v. 12. 
Praesag. e Puls. iii. 4); and the similarity is recognised by him (De 
Simp. Medicam. Temperam. ix. 1. ὃ 4.) It lasted during fifty years, 
and ravaged the greater part of the Roman world. See Littré’s 
Introduction to the second book of the so-called Epidemics of 
Hippocrates, Giuvres d’Hippocrate, vol. v. p. 62 ff.; cp. vol. i. p. 122. 

The plague at Athens is described by Mr. Grote as an eruptive 
typhoid fever. Without giving a name to a disorder which no 
longer exists, and cannot be certainly identified with any later 
epidemic, we may remark that it has many symptoms in common 
with typhus fever, and with the more malignant forms of measles 
and small pox, and seems to combine the features of several 
modern diseases in one. 

Whether our modern small pox was known to the ancients or 
not is uncertain. That eruptive diseases which are described as 
covering the whole body existed among them is admitted. But 
no modern form of small pox is attended by gangrene of the ex- 
tremities or by ulcers (€Axy) such as are mentioned in Thucydides. 
Nor does Thucydides say anything of the appearance of the pustules 
(φλύκταιναι) forming a crisis in the disease, as is the case in small 
pox, and as Galen records to have been the fact with the ‘ulcers 
which attended the ‘pestis Antoniniana.’ Nor does any ancient 
writer mention one of the most characteristic features of the 
disorder,—the marks left by small pox after the recovery of the 
patient. 

The word φλύκταινα, which commonly means a blister, either on 
the skin or on bread, is not sufficiently precise to enable us to 
identify it with the pustule in small pox; it might with equal pro- 
priety signify bladder-like formations of another kind. 

There are several difficulties which prevent our arriving at certain 
conclusions in these and similar inquiries. (1) The generality of the 
description, often passing over or but slightly mentioning the 
symptoms which to a modern pathologist would appear to be most 
characteristic of the disorder; (2) some uncertainty in the precise 


APPENDIX. 147 


ra =zaming of words; (3) the fluctuating character of the diseases 
tka e@xnraselves which do not always retain a clearly defined type, but 
να αν with climate and circumstances and the variety of human 
C<>kEasttutions. There is a struggle for existence in diseases as well 
a=S 1X2 animals, and they increase or diminish in strength and com- 
p 1 <> ity according to their environments. 

“he above remarks are partly taken from Littré’s excellent 
© <i 3 ©. on and translation of Hippocrates. He maintains the genuine- 
yae==sss of the Epidemics on the ground that they are attributed to 
ἘῚ i > pocrates by the consentient voice of later Greek antiquity. 
ESuae similar testimony might be adduced for writings of Plato, 
Px wi stotle, and Xenophon, which are confessedly spurious. That 
the Epidemics belong to the school of Hippocrates, that ancient 
$< Fi col of inductive philosophy which sought to rest medicine on 
$C ertained facts, may be safely asserted. But where nothing cer- 

“=zixnly belonging to an author or decidedly characteristic of him 
been preserved to us and the writing attributed to him also 
©OR tains little that is characteristic, it is impossible safely to connect 
therm. We cannot, out of two unknown quantities, elicit a known 
one. 
But although it is impossible to identify the plague of Athens 
W2thh any known disease of other ages, both its moral and physical 
fe=a tures may receive considerable illustration from the striking 
descriptions of two of the greatest pestilences by which the human 
Tae has been devastated. 
“The first is the remarkable account in Gibbon, c. xliii. § 3, of 
the great plague of Constantinople, which began in the year 542 
amd continued during half a century to desolate the Graeco-Roman 
world, It is chiefly based on Procopius, whose narrative is 
adomed by several terms borrowed from Thucydides, 6. ξ΄. λεγέτω 
μὲν οὖν Ss πη ἕκαστος περὶ αὐτῶν γινώσκει καὶ σοφιστὴς καὶ μετεωρολόγος, 
ἐγὼ δὲ ὅθεν τε ἤρξατο ἡ νόσος Woe καὶ τρόπῳ δὴ ὅτῳ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους διέφ- - 
θειρεν ἐρῶν ἔρχομαι : De Bell. Persico, ii. 22. Ρ. 142. The ex-emperor 
nus in the fourteenth century (Hist. iv. 8), who describes 
the death by the plague of his own son, Andronicus, about 1340, is 
ἃ Much more flagrant plagiarist of Thucydides. Agathias too, who 
L2 


148 THUCYDIDES. 


gives a short account of the earlier plague (Hist. v. 10), has not 
forgotten his model; although how far his recollections are accom- 
modated to the phrases or reflections of Thucydides, it is impossible 
to determine. A circumstance mentioned by Procopius but omitted 
by Gibbon, and not improbable, though at variance with the 
statement of Thucydides respecting the plague at Athens, is that 
the physicians or attendants of the sick and dying generally 
escaped. : 

‘Aethiopia and Egypt have been stigmatised in every age as 
the original source and seminary of the plague. In a damp, hot, 
stagnating air, this African fever is generated from the putrefaction 
of animal substances, and especially from the swarms of locusts, 
not less destructive to mankind in their death than in their lives. 
The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of 
Justinian and his successors first appeared in the neighbourhood 
of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the eastern channel 
of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a double path, it 
spread to the East, over Syria, Persia, and the Indies, and pene- 
trated to the West, along the coast of Africa and over the con- 
tinent of Europe. In the spring of the second year Constantinople, 
during three or four months, was visited by the pestilence ; and 
Procopius, who observed its progress and symptoms with the eyes 
of a physician, has emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides 
in the description of the plague of Athens. The infection was 
sometimes announced by the visions of a distempered fancy, and 
the victim despaired as soon as he had heard the menace and felt 
the stroke of an invisible spectre. But the greater number, in 
their beds, in the streets, in their usual occupation, were surprised 
by a slight fever; so slight, indeed, that neither the pulse nor the 
colour of the patient gave any signs of the approaching danger. 
The same, the next, or the succeeding day, it was declared by the 
swelling of the glands, particularly those of the groin, of the arm- 
pits, and under the ear; and when these buboes or tumours were 
opened, they were found to contain a coa/, or black substance, of 
the size of a lentil. If they came to a just swelling and suppura- 
tion, the patient was saved by this kind and natural discharge of 
the morbid humour ; but if they continued hard and dry, a mortifi- 


APPENDIX. 149 


Cation quickly ensued, and the fifth day was commonly the term of 

his life. The fever was often accompanied with lethargy or deli- 

rium ; the bodies of the sick were covered with black pustules or 

carbuncles, the symptoms of immediate death; and in the con- 

Stitutions too feeble to produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood 

was followed by a mortification of the bowels. To pregnant women 

the plague was generally mortal; yet one infant was drawn alive 

from his dead mother, and three mothers survived the loss of their 

infected foetus. Youth was. the most perilous season, and the 

female sex was less susceptible than the male; but every rank and 

Profession was attacked with indiscriminate rage, and many of 

those who escaped were deprived of the use of their speech, 

Without being secure from a return of the disorder. The physicians 

©f Constantinople were zealous and skilful; but their art was 

@ffed by the various symptoms and pertinacious vehemence of 

the clisease : the same remedies were productive of contrary effects, 

“nc the event capriciously disappointed their prognostics of death 

Or x-ecovery. The order of funerals and the right of sepulchres 

Wex- = confounded ; those who were left without friends or servants 

lay unburied in the streets, or in their desolate houses; and a 

M& ger istrate was authorised to collect the promiscuous heaps of 

demas bodies, to transport them by land or water, and to inter them 

‘2 <eep pits beyond the precincts of the city. Their own danger 

ancl the prospect of public distress awakened some remorse in the 

rads of the most vicious of mankind: the confidence of health 

& =n in revived their passions and habits; but philosophy must dis- 

Ἐπ Ὸ the observation of Procopius, that the lives of such men were 

ες. “murded by the peculiar favour of fortune or Providence. He 

<= or perhaps he secretly recollected, that the plague had 

= ed the person of Justinian himself; but the abstemious diet 

the emperor may suggest, as in the case of Socrates, a more 

= Monal and honourable cause for his recoyery. During his sick- 

= the public consternation was expressed in the habits of the 

BR νης; and their idleness and despondence occasioned a general 
“arcity in the capital of the East. 

‘Contagion is the inseparable symptom of the plague; which, 

Ὄωώῶν. mutual respiration, is transfused from the infected persons to 


150 THUCYDIDES. 


the lungs and stomach of those who approach them. While philo- 
sophers believe and tremble, it is singular that the existence of a 
real danger should have been denied by a people most prone to 
vain and imaginary terrors. Yet the fellow-citizens of Procopius 
were satisfied, by some short and partial experience, that the in- 
fection could not be gained by the closest conversation ; and this 
persuasion might support the assiduity of friends or physicians 
in the care of the sick, whom inhuman prudence would have 
condemned to solitude and despair. But the fatal security, like 
the predestination of the Turks, must have aided the progress of 
the contagion ; and those salutary precautions to which Europe is- 
indebted for her safety were unknown to the government of 
Justinian. No restraints were imposed on the free and frequent 
intercourse of the Roman provinces: from Persia to France the 
nations were mingled and infected by wars and emigrations; and 
the pestilential odour which lurks for years in a bale of cotton was 
imported, by the abuse of trade, into the most distant regions. 
The mode of its propagation is explained by the remark of 
Procopius himself, that it always spread from the sea-coast to the 
inland country : the most sequestered islands and mountains were 
successively visited ; the places which had escaped the fury of its 
first passage were alone exposed to the contagion of the ensuing 
year. The winds might diffuse that subtle venom ; but unless the 
atmosphere be previously disposed for its reception, the plague 
would soon expire in the cold or temperate climates of the earth. 
Such was the universal corruption of the air, that the pestilence 
which burst forth in the fifteenth year of Justinian was not checked 
or alleviated by any difference of the seasons. In time its first 
malignity was abated and dispersed; the disease alternately lan- 
guished and revived; but it was not till the end of a calamitous 
period of fifty-two years that mankind recovered their health, or 
the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. No facts have 
been preserved to sustain an account, or even a conjecture, of the 
numbers that perished in this extraordinary mortality. I only find 
that, during three months, five and at length ten thousand persons 
died each day at Constantinople; that many cities of the East 
were left vacant; and that in several districts of Italy the harvest 


APPENDIX. 151 


and the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of 
war, pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian ; 
and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human 
species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest 
countries of the globe.’ 

The other narrative is the well-known account of the plague at 
Florence, depicted by the genius of Boccaccio in the Decameron. 

‘In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at Florence, 
the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible plague; which, whether 
owing to the influence of the planets, or that it was sent from God 
as a just punishment for our sins, had broken out some years 
before in the Levant; and after passing from place to place, and 
making incredible havoc all the way, had now reached the west ; 
where, spite of all the means that art and human foresight could 
suggest, as keeping the city clear from filth, and excluding all sus- 
pected persons; notwithstanding frequent consultations what else 
was to be done; not omitting prayers to God in frequent proccs- 
sions: in the spring of the foregoing year, it began to show itself 
in a sad and wonderful manner; and, different from what it had 
been in the east, where bleeding from the nose is the fatal 
prognostic, here there appeared certain tumours in the groin, or 
under the arm-pits, some as big as a small apple, others as an egg ; 
and afterwards purple spots in most parts of the body: in some 
cases large and but few in number, in others less and more 
numerous, both sorts the usual messengers of death. To the cure 
of this malady, neither medical knowledge nor the power of drugs 
was of any effect; whether because the disease was in its own 
nature mortal, or that the physicians (the number of whom, taking 
quacks and women pretenders into the account, was grown very 
great) could form no just idea of the cause, nor consequently 
ground a true method of cure; whichever was the reason, few or 
none escaped; but they generally died the third day from the first 
appearance of the symptoms, without a fever or other bad circum- 
stance attending. And the disease, by being communicated from 
the sick to the well, seemed daily to get a-head and to rage the 
more, as fire will do by laying on fresh combustibles. Nor was 
it given by conversing with only, or coming near the sick, but even 


132 THUCYDIDES. 


by touching their clothes, or anything that they had before touched— E> 1. 
It is wonderful what I am going to mention; which, had I not# <> 
seen it with my own eyes, and were there not many witnesses toa» ™0 
attest it besides myself, I should never venture to relate, however αὶ —* 
credibly I might have been informed about it: such, I say, was the => #& 
quality of the pestilential matter, as to pass not only from man to <—™-“ 
man, but, what is more strange and has been often known, that ΞΕ --- 
anything belonging to the infected, if touched by any other “Ὁ — 
creature, would certainly infect, and even kill that creature ina = 


short space of time: and one instance of this kind I took particular 
notice of, namely, that the rags of a poor man just dead, being 
thrown into the street, and two hogs coming by at the same time 
and rooting amongst them, and shaking them about in their 
mouths, in less than an hour turned round and died on the spot. 
These accidents, and others of the like sort, occasioned various 
fears and devices amongst those people that survived, all tending 
to the same uncharitable and cruel end; which was to avoid the 
sick, and everything that had been near them; expecting by that 
means to save themselves. And some holding it best to live tem- 
perately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties, and shut 
themselves up from the rest of the world; eating and drinking 
moderately of the best, and diverting themselves with music, and 
such other entertainments as they might have within doors; never 
listening to anything from without, to make them uneasy. Others 
maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would baulk 
no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking and 
revelling incessantly from tavern to tavern, or in private houses ; 
which were frequently found deserted by the owners, and therefore 
common to everyone; yet avoiding, with all this irregularity, to 
come near the infected. And such at that time was the public 
distress, that the laws, human and divine, were not regarded; for, 
the officers to put them in force being either dead, sick, or in want 
of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he pleased. A 
third sort of people choose a method between these two; not con- 
fining themselves to rules of dict like the former, and yet avoiding 
the intemperance of the latter; but eating and drinking what 
their appetites required, they walked everywhere with odours and 


-- 


= 
= 
— WZ 


». al Ν 


APPENDIX. 153 


nosegays to smell to; as holding it best to corroborate the brain: 
for they supposed the whole atmosphere to be tainted with the 
stink of dead bodies, arising partly from the distemper itself, and 
Partly from the fermenting of the medicines within them. Others 
of a more cruel disposition, as perhaps the more safe to themselves, 
CAeclared that the only remedy was to avoid it: persuaded, therefore, 
<>f this, and taking care for themselves only, men and women in 
gs Teat numbers left the city, their houses, relations, and effects, and 
ed into the country: as if the wrath of God had been restrained 
@ @ visit those only within the walls of the city; or else concluding 
τ δὶ none ought to stay in a place thus doomed to destruction. 
—¥Divided as they were, neither did all die nor all escape; but falling 
s=sick indifferently, as well those of one as of another opinion, they 
—~avho first set the example by forsaking others, now languished 
“athemselves without mercy. I pass over the little regard that 
«xitizens and relations showed to each other; for their terror was 
ssuch that a brother even fled from his brother, a wife from her 
Thusband, and, what is more uncommon, a parent from its own 
child. On which account numbers that fell sick could have no 
help but what the charity of friends, who were very few, or the 
avarice of servants supplied; and even these were scarce, and at 
extravagant wages, and so little used to the business, that they 
were fit only to reach what was called for, and observe when they 
died; and this desire of getting money often cost them their lives. 
From this desertion of friends, and scarcity of servants, an un- 
heard-of custom prevailed; no lady, however young or handsome, 
would disdain being attended by a man-servant, whether young or 
old it mattered not; and to expose herself naked to him, the 
necessity of the distemper requiring it, as though it was to a 
woman ; which might make those who recovered less modest for 
the time to come. And many lost their lives who might have 
escaped had they been looked after at all. So that between the 
scarcity of servants and violence of the distemper, such numbers 
were continually dying, as made it terrible to hear as well as to 
behold. Whence from mere necessity, many customs were intro- 
duced, different from what had been before known in the city. It 
had been usual, as it now is, for the women who were friends and 


154 THUCYDIDES. 


neighbours to the deceased, to meet together at his house, and to 
lament with his relations; at the same time the men would get 
together at the door, with a number of clergy, according to the 
person's circumstances ; and the corpse was carried by people of 
his own rank, with the solemnity of tapers and singing, to that 
church where the person had desired to be buried; which custom 
was now laid aside, and, so far from having a crowd of women to 
lament over them, that great numbers passed out of the world 
without a single person: and few had the tears of their friends 
at their departure ; but those friends would laugh, and make them- 
selves merry ; for even the women had learned to postpone every 
other concern to that of their own lives. Nor was a corpse attended 
by more than ten or a dozen, nor those citizens of credit, but 
fellows hired for the purpose ; who would put themselves under 
the bier, and carry it with all possible haste to the nearest church; 
and the corpse was interred, without any great ceremony, where 
they could find room. 

‘With regard to the lower sort, and many of a middling rank, 
the scene was still more affecting; for they staying at home either 
through poverty, or hopes of succour in distress, fell sick daily by 
thousands, and, having nobody to attend them, generally died: 
some breathed their last in the streets, and others shut up in their 
own houses, when the stench that came from them made the first 
discovery of their deaths to the neighbourhood. And, indeed, 
every place was filled with the dead. A method now was taken, 
as well out of regard to the living, as pity for the dead, for the 
neighbours, assisted by what porters they could meet with, to 
clear all the houses, and lay the bodies at the doors; and every 
morning great numbers might be seen brought out in this manner ; 
from whence they were carried away on biers, or tables, two or 
three at a time; and sometimes it has happened that a wife and 
her husband, two or three brothers, and a father and son, have 
been laid on together: it has been observed also, whilst two or 
three priests have walked before a corpse with their crucifix, that 
two or three sets of porters have fallen in with them ; and where 
they knew but of one, they have buried six, eight, or more : nor 
was there any to follow and shed a few tears over them ; for things 


APPENDIX. 155 


were come to that pass, that men’s lives were no more regarded 
than the lives of so many beasts. Hence it plainly appeared, that 
what the wisest in the ordinary course of things, and by a common 
train of calamities, could never be taught, namely, to bear them 
Patiently ; this, by the excess of those calamities, was now grown 
@ familiar lesson to the most simple and unthinking. The con- 
S€crated ground no longer containing the numbers which were 
Continually brought thither, especially as they were desirous of 
laying every one in the parts allotted to their families; they were 
forced to dig trenches and to put them in by hundreds, piling them 
up in rows, as goods are stowed in a ship, and throwing in little 
earth till they were filled to the top. Not to rake any farther 
into the particulars of our misery, I shall observe that it fared no 
better with the adjacent country; for to omit the different castles 
about us, which presented the same view in miniature with the 
City, you might see the poor distressed labourers with their 
families, without either trouble of physicians, or help of servants, 
languishing on the highways, in the fields, and in their own houses, 
and dying rather like cattle than human creatures; and growing 
dissoJute in their manners like the citizens, and careless of every- 
thing, as supposing every day to be their last, their thoughts 
Were not so much employed how to improve as to make use of 
theix- substance for their present support: whence it happened 
that the flocks, herds, etc., and the dogs themselves, ever faithful 
their masters, being driven from their own homes, would 
Y@-¥x der, no regard being had to them, among the forsaken harvest; 
ne’ many times, after they had filled themselves in the day, would 
feu of their own accord like rational creatures at night. What 
Ae I say more, if I return to the city? unless that such was the 
TRA elty of Heaven, and perhaps of men, that between March and 
aly following, it is supposed, and made pretty certain, that up- 
W=\rds of a hundred thousand souls perished in the city only; 
* Exereas, before that calamity, it was not supposed to have con- 
‘ined so many inhabitants.’ 


1.1. 


2. I. 


3. 3. 


BOOK III. 


dua τῷ σίτῳ ἀκμάζοντι. 
Cp. note on ii. 2. 1. 


pera δὲ τὴν ἐσβολὴν τῶν Πελοποννησίων εὐθὺς Λέσβος πλὴν Μηθύμνης 
ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων. 

Yet in 412 Methymna, first of all the towns of Lesbos, joined 
the revolt of the allies against Athens, viii. 22 fin. So capricious 
was the popular feeling in Greek states. Cp. Arist. Pol. v. 4. 5, 6, 
who gives a somewhat different account of the revolt of Mitylene. 


βουληθέντες μὲν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ πολέμον (ἀλλ᾽ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ov προσεδέξ- 
avro), ἀναγκασθέντες δὲ καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀπόστασιν πρότερον ἣ διενοοῦντο 
ποιήσασθαι. 

καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀπόστασιν. Although they had wanted to revolt long 
before, ‘yet even in this revolt,’ which they actually made, as 
opposed to that which they had only intended to make, ‘they were 
still unprepared.’ 


τῶν τε γὰρ λιμένων τὴν χῶσιν καὶ τειχῶν oixoddunow καὶ νεῶν ποίησιν 
ἐπέμενον τελεσθῆναι, καὶ ὅσα ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου ἔδει ἀφικέσθαι, τοξότας τε 
καὶ σῖτον, καὶ ἃ μεταπεμπόμενοι ἦσαν. Τενέδιοι γάρ κιτ.λ. 

The first sentence—rév re γάρ «.r.A.—explains why they wanted 
to delay; the second, Τενέδιοι γάρ, why they were compelled to 
hurry; the second γάρ reverting to the main idea ἀναγκασθέντες δὲ 
καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀπόστασιν πρότερον ἣ διενοοῦντο ποιεῖσθαι, and the words 
which intervene being parenthetical. 

ἐπέμενον takes two constructions, 4) the infinitive τελεσθῆναι, 
ὅν the accusative ὅσα ἔδει ἀφικέσθαι. 


ὅτι ξυνοικίζουσί τε τὴν Λέσβον ἐς τὴν Μυτιλήνην βίᾳ καὶ τὴν παρασκευὴν 
ἅπασαν μετὰ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ Βοιωτῶν ξυγγενῶν ὄντων ἐπὶ ἀποστάσει 
ἐπείγονται. 

1)* ‘They were compelling the inhabitants of Lesbos to settle in 
Mitylene.’ 


NOTES, BOOK 111. 157 


Or 2) ‘They were seeking to centralize by force the government 2. 3. 
of Lesbos in Mitylene.’ But the Greek word, without further ex- 
planation (such as is given in ii. 13 med.), hardly admits of this 
meaning. For the other use, cp. i. 10 init. οὔτε ξυνοικισθείσης πόλεως 
καὶ. And the Mitylenians would naturally wish to bring into 
the city the inhabitants of the country who were friendly to them- 
selves, that they might not fall into the hands of the Athenians, 
and perhaps to take hostages from those who were in the interest 
of the Athenians, that they might be prevented from joining them. 
Compare the similar measures taken by Perdiccas previous to the 
Chalcidian revolt, when he transplanted some of the inhabitants 
of Chalcidicé to Olynthus, i. 58 fin. 

For Βοιωτῶν ξυγγενῶν ὄντων cp. viii. 100 med. 


οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἦσαν yap τεταλαιπωρημένοι ὑπό τε τῆς νόσου καὶ τοῦ 8.1, 
πολέμου ἄρτι καθισταμένου καὶ ἀκμάζοντος. 

‘The war which was newly begun and was at its height.’ 
Poppo objects to this explanation ‘that a war is less oppres- 
sive at first than afterwards.’ To which it may be replied, ‘that it 
is more felt,’ and therefore its novelty may be deemed an aggra- 
vation of the evil. There is no reason for taking the words ἄρτι 
καθισταμένου in any but their usual sense (cp. ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθιστα- 
μένου, i. 1 init.) Poppo himself translates, ‘the war which was just 
then on foot;’ but the precision thus given to the word ἄρτι is 
unmeaning. A year afterwards, iii. 68 fin., the war is still spoken 
of as ἄρτι τότε καθιστάμενος. 


μεῖζον μέρος νέμοντες τῷ μὴ βούλεσθαι ἀληθῆ εἶναι. 8. 1. 
Cp. Dem. Olynth. iii. 33, ὃ γὰρ βούλεται, τοῦθ᾽ ἕκαστος καὶ οἴεται. τὰ 
δὲ πράγματα πολλάκις οὐχ οὕτω πέφυκεν. Cp. also Thuc. iv. 108 med. 
εἰωθότες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὗ μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, ἐλπίδι ἀπερισκέπτῳ διδόναι͵ ὃ δὲ 
μὴ προσίενται, λογισμῷ αὐτοκράτορι διωθεῖσθαι. 


καὶ πέμπουσιν ἐξαπιναίως τεσσαράκοντα ναῦς, at ἔτυχον περὶ Πελοπόν- 8. 3. 
νησὸν παρεσκενασμέναι πλεῖν" Ἐλεϊππίδης δὲ ὁ Δεινίον τρίτος αὐτὸς ἐστρα- 


τήγει. ἐσηγγέλθη γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ὡς εἴη ᾿Απόλλωνος Μαλόεντος ἔξω τῆς 
πόλεως ἑορτή, ἐν 7 πανδημεὶ Μυτιληναῖοι ἑορτάζουσι, καὶ ἔλπίδα εἶναι ἐπει- 


3. 3. 


3. 5. 


3. 6. 


4. 5. 


158 THUCYDIDES. 


χθέντας ἐπιπεσεῖν ἄφνω" καὶ ἣν μὲν ξυμβῇ ἡ πεῖρα, ef δὲ μή, Μυτιληναίοις- 
εἰπεῖν ναὺς τε παραδοῦναι καὶ τείχη καθελεῖν, μὴ πειθομένων δέ, πολεμεῖν. 

qv expresses what the Athenians hoped to be the more probable 
alternative, εἰ the remoter or less probable. Compare iv. 13 fin. 
τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ παρασκευασάμενοι ὡς ἐπὶ ναυμαχίαν ἀνήγοντο, ἣν μὲν ἀντεκ- 
πλεῖν ἐθέλωσι σφίσιν ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, εἶ δὲ μή, ὡς αὐτοὶ ἐπεσπλευσού- 
μένοι. 

With εἰπεῖν some verb such as κελεύουσιν is to be supplied from 


πέμπουσιν. 


πλῷ χρησάμενος καὶ τριταῖος ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν ἐς Μυτιλήνην ἀφικόμενος. 
πλῷ χρησάμενος does not necessarily imply ‘making a favourable 
voyage,’ but only ‘ having found it possible to sail.’ The ordinary 
merchant vessel, although furnished with oars, would wait for a 
favourable wind. mAovs=opportunity of sailing, the reverse of 
ἅπλοια : cp. Soph. Phil. 464,— 
ὡς ὁπηνίκ᾽ ἂν θεὸς 
πλοῦν ἡμὶν εἴκῃ, τηνικαῦθ᾽ ὁρμώμεθα. 
So the words μέχρι πλοῦς γένηται, i. 137 med., referring to the 
storm which overtook Themistocles off Naxos, are to be explained 
‘until sailing was possible.’ 


of δὲ οὔτε ἐς τὸν Maddevra ἐξῆλθον, τά τε ἄλλα τῶν τειχῶν καὶ λιμένων 
περὶ τὰ ἡμιτέλεστα φραξάμενοι ἐφύλασσον. 

τά τε ἄλλα, ‘and for the rest,’ referring back to the clause τῶν re 
γὰρ λιμένων τὴν χῶσιν x.7.A, in Cc, 2 init., 1)* may be taken in con- 
nection with ἐφύλασσον, τὰ τείχη καὶ ras λιμένας having to be supplied 
with ἐφύλασσον from φραξάμενοι περὶ τὰ ἡμιτέλεστα τῶν τειχῶν καὶ 
λιμένων. Or 2), throwing back the accent on πέρι, the clause τῶν 
τειχῶν kai λιμένων πέρι May be regarded as explanatory of rd re ἄλλα, 
‘and for the rest, namely, in respect of their walls and harbours, 
they barricaded their unfinished parts and guarded them.’ 


τῶν re διαβαλλόντων ἕνα ᾧ μετέμελεν ἤδη. 
Scil. one of the proxeni mentioned in c. 2 med. 
ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἀποστέλλουσι καὶ ἐς τὴν Λακεδαίμονα πρέσβεις τριήρει, 


λαθόντες τὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ναντικόν, οἱ ὥρμουν ἐν τῇ Μαλέᾳ, πρὸς βορέαν 
τῆς πόλεως. 


NOTES, BOOK III. 159 


According to Strabo, Malea was a promontory to the south of 4. 5. 
Lesbos, xiii. 2. 2, ἀπὸ Μηθύμνης els Μαλίαν τὸ νοτιώτατον ἄκρον ἐν δεξίᾳ 
ἔχουσι τὴν νῆσον, .. . στάδιοί εἶσι τριακόσιοι τετταράκοντα... . Μυτιλήνη 
δὲ κεῖται μεταξὺ Μηθύμνης καὶ τῆς Μαλίας ἡ μεγίστη πύλις, διέχουσα τῆς 
Ἀλιαλίας ἑβδομήκοντα σταδίων. How are these words to be reconciled 
~wwith ἐν τῇ Madég πρὸς βορέαν τῆς πόλεως And if Malea was distant 
za bout eight miles from Mitylene, how could the Athenians have 
Ζα λα their naval station and market there, iii. 6 init.? 
Other statements of Thucydides affecting the question are .as 
4 <>Ilows :—a) The Mitylenaeans make an attack with their whole 
ΠΣ «D1ce upon the Athenian station (iii. 5 init.), ie. the station at 
-Wifalea: δ) In iii. 6. 1 (see note on the words) the Athenians are 
==-=id to have anchored round, or to have taken up a new position to, 
™ te south of the city: ¢) They now established two camps (iii. 6), 
<—ne to the north and the other to the south of the city, and block- 
<=mded both the harbours: ¢@) Their hold of the country did not 
“=xtend far beyond their own lines, and Malea was rather a naval 
Station and market than a camp. 

We may suppose 1) that Thucydides made a mistake (see remarks 
on the Geography of Thucydides in the Introduction). 2) That 
‘the words πρὸς βορέαν τῆς πόλεως are ‘a gloss.’ But there is no 
‘variation in the MSS. And why should a gloss contain so palpable 
a mistake? 3) That there are two Maleas. One of the harbours 
of Mitylene is said by Aristotle (p. 973, ἀνέμων θέσεις καὶ προσηγορίαι) 
to have been called ὁ Madde. (Καικίας᾽ οὗτος ἐν μὲν Λέσβῳ καλειται 
Θηβάνας" πνεῖ γὰρ ἀπὸ Θήβης πεδίου τοῦ ὑπὲρ τὸν ᾿Ελαιατικὸν κόλπον τῆς 
Μυσίας, ἐνοχλεῖ δὲ τὸν Μυτιληναίων λιμένα, μάλιστα δὲ τὸν Μαλόεντα). ΒυὺϊΪ 
the Malea where the Athenians lay is clearly distinguished by 
Thucydides from either of the two harbours of the city which they 
blockaded later. And the words of Aristotle, although they clearly 
refer to the northern harbour, do not prove that Cape Malea was 
near it. 

4) It is a better solution of the difficulty, with Stahl, to connect 
the words πρὸς βορέαν τῆς πόλεως at the end of the sentence with 
ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἀποστέλλουσιν at the beginning. To this way of taking 
them it may be objected, with some force, that ‘they are too far, 
off.’ But it may be replied, with still greater reason, that they supply 


4. 5. 


5. 3. 


16ο THUCYDIDES. 


the answer to the question which naturally arises, how, in the face 
of an Athenian fleet, any one could find a way out of Mitylene? 
They are in fact an explanation of the clause λαθόντες τὸ τῶν 
᾿Αθηναίων ναντικόν, which is closely connected with ἀποστέλλουσι. ‘The 
trireme conveying the embassy goes out of its way round the north 
of the island by the Andramyttian gulf, in order to deceive the 
Athenians, who are stationed at Malea, the south-east point. 

The remainder of the narrative is quite consistent with this inter- 
} retation. The Athenian station was eight miles off, because, not 
Eaving military possession of the island, the Athenians could occupy 
no place nearer. The communication afterwards between the 
blockading force and the naval station was by sea and not by land. 
They were not in possession of the harbour of Mitylene, and there 
is no harbour along the coast between Mitylene and Cape Malea 
in which they could find s.elter. 

Compare the proposal of Lamachus (vi. 49 fin.), that the Athe- 
nians, while besieging Syracuse, should form ἃ ναύσταθμον at Megara, 
about twelve miles off. 

There is indeed no harbour at Malea, but not far off there is a 
land-locked gulf (now Port Iero), which runs up towards the 
centre of the island within two miles from Mitylene. We can 
hardly suppose that the Athenian fleet would have failed to make 
use of this harbour. Thucydides does not mention it: may we 
not infer that he was imperfectly acquainted with the geography 
of the country ὃ 


καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐς τὴν Λακεδαίμονα ταλαιπώρως διὰ τοῦ πελάγους κομισθέντες 
αὐτοῖς ἔπρασσον ὕπως τις βοήθεια ἥξει. 

διὰ τοῦ πελάγους, through the open sea, i.e. not touching at the 
islands on their way. 

αὐτοῖς is a ‘dativus commodi’ referring to the Lesbians, and 1) 
may be connected with the whole sentence, as its position suf- 
ficiently indicates, not simply with ἔπρασσον. Or 2)* it may be 
taken with ἥξει. In either case the embassy, οἱ μέν, is distinguished 
from the whole people, αὐτοῖς. 


ἔπειτα of μὲν ἡσύχαζον, ἐκ Πελοποννήσου καὶ μετ᾽ ἄλλης παρασκενῆς. 


NOTES, BOOK III. 161 


βουλόμενοι εἶ προσγέγοιτό τι κινδυνεύειν" καὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς Μελέας Λάκων δ. 3. 
ἀφικνεῖται καὶ Ἑρμαιώνδας Θηβαῖος «.r.d. 
βουλόμενοι κιτιλ., ‘intending when they had more help,’ (cp. c. 2. 
2,) but not till then. 
per’ ἄλλης, ‘with more preparation than they have,’ is explanatory 
of ἐκ Πελοποννήσου, but also includes the aid expected from Thebes. 
ἐκ Πελοποννήσου is governed by the idea afterwards expressed in εἰ 


Φ 
προσγένοιτο τι. 


οἱ δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι πολὺ ἐπιῤῥωσθέντες διὰ τὴν τῶν Μυτιληναίων ἡσυχίαν 6. I. 
ξυμμάχους τε προσεκάλουν, οἱ πολὺ θᾶσσον παρῆσαν ὁρῶντες οὐδὲν ἰσχυρὸν 
ἀπὸ τῶν Λεσβίων, καὶ περιορμισάμενοι τὸ πρὸς νότον τῆς πόλεως ἐτείχισαν 
στρατόπεδα δύο ἑκατέρωθεν τῆς πόλεως, καὶ τοὺς ἐφόρμους ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις 
τοῖς λιμέσιν ἐποιοῦντο. 

This passage does not show that Malea was north of the city 
(iii, 4 fin.), as περιορμισάμενοι need not imply that the Athenians 
were on the north side of the city before and changed their position 
to the south, but only that they 1)* came to anchor all round the 
south part of the city, or 2) took up a new position south of the 
City. For τὸ πρὸς νότον after περιορμισάμενοι cp. note on vi. 63. 2. 


ἦν δὲ ᾿Ολυμπιὰς 7 Δωριεὺς ‘Pddvos τὸ δεύτερον ἐνίκα. 8. 1. 
The name of Dorieus was famous among athletes. He became 
2n Athenian citizen, and afterwards, being exiled and outlawed, 
Was taken fighting at sea against Athens, and then out of pity 
forgiven on his appearance in the assembly. Thuc. viii. 84, 
Paws. vi. 7. 2, Xen. Hell. i. 1.2; 5.19. He is finally said to have 
been put to death by the Lacedaemonians. But Pausanias intimates 
that this part of the story is the invention of an obscure writer 
haxxnxed Androtion, who, wanting to counteract the odium raised 
4@inst the Athenians by the condemnation of the ten generals, 
br wght a similar charge against the Lacedaemonians. 


«ἔδόγ,, οὔτε φιλίαν ἰδιώταις βέβαιον γιγνομένην οὔτε κοινωνίαν πόλεσιν 10, 1. 
“ οὐδέν, εἰ μὴ μετ ἀρετῆς δοκούσης ἐς ἀλλήλους γίγνοιντο, καὶ τᾶλλα 
‘Powos εἶεν. 
free” ἀρετῆς δοκούσης, Not apparent as opposed to real, but ‘apparent 
Vou. πὸ M 


10.1. 


10. 4. 


10. 6. 


162 THUCYDIDES, 


to each other.’ γίγνοιντο, scil. φιλία καὶ κοινωνία. In the following 
Clause καὶ... εἶεν, the subject is changed. 


ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἑωρῶμεν αὐτοὺς τὴν μὲν τοῦ Μήδου ἔχθραν ἀνιέντας, τὴν δὲ τῶν 
ξυμμάχων δούλωσιν ἐπαγομένους, οὐκ ἀδεεῖς ἔτι ἦμεν. 

The middle ἐπργομένους emphasizes either 1) the activity of the 
agent (for this use cp. Kriiger, Sprachlehre, 52. 8), ‘ Themselves 
actively bringing subjugation (δούλωσις not δουλεία) on the allies,’ or 
2) the self-interested character of the action, ‘bringing, in their own 
interest, subjugation on the allies.’ Bekker suggests, though he 
does not adopt in the text, the conjecture ἐπείγεσθαι. But the 
change is unnecessary. 


οὐ yap εἰκὸς ἦν αὐτοὺς obs μὲν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐνσπόνδους ἐποιήσαντο κατα- 
στρέψασθαι, τοὺς δὲ ὑπολοίπους, εἴ ποτε ἄρα ἐδυνήθησαν, μὴ δρᾶσαι 
τοῦτο. 

εἴ ποτε ἄρα ἐδυνήθησαν. There is a confusion between the past 
and the present feelings of the Mitylenaeans. From the point of 
view of their past feelings, at the time when their fears were 
aroused, they had thought it improbable ‘that the Athenians, who 
attacked others, would spare them, if ever they had the power to 
attack them,’ εἴ ποτε δυνηθείησαν. But this last clause is expressed 
from their present point of view, ‘if ever they had had the power’ 
(which they never had), εἴ ποτε ἄρα ἐδυνήθησαν. 


καὶ εἰ μὲν αὐτόνομοι ἔτι ἦμεν ἅπαντες, βεβαιότεροι ἂν ἡμῖν ἦσαν μηδὲν 
νεωτεριεῖν᾽ ὑποχειρίους δὲ ἔχοντες τοὺς πλείους, ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου 
ὁμιλοῦντες, χαλεπώτερον εἰκότως ἔμελλον οἴσειν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ πλεῖον HOH 
εἶκον τοῦ ἡμετέρου ἔτι μόνου ἀντισουμένου, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅσῳ δυνατώτεροι 
αὐτοὶ αὑτῶν ἐγίγνοντο καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐρημότεροι. 

καὶ πρὸς τὸ πλεῖον... ἀντισουμένου is a repetition of the previous 
clause, ὑποχειρίους δὲ... ὁμιλοῦντες, in a new form, which points the 
contrast between the situation of the Mitylenaeans and that of the 
other allies. Compare for a similar pleonastic expression i. 39 fin. 
1) ‘They would take offence at the footing of equality on which 
we stood, especially when (καί) they remarked the contrast between 
that equality and the submission of the majority,’ καί influencing 


NOTES, BOOK III. 163 


the whole clause. Or 2) καί may be closely connected with πρὸς 11, 1, 
τὸ πλεῖον ἤδη εἶκον, ‘even although the majority had already yielded.’ 

Or 3) καί may be taken simply in the sense of ‘and,’ coupling the 
clause καὶ πρὸς... ἀντισουμένου with the clause ὑποχειρίους... ὁμιλοῦντες. 
‘While they were holding the majority in subjection, but associ- 
ating with us on equal terms, and while we alone were retaining 

our equality, although the majority had yielded,’ etc. 


dpa μὲν yap μαρτυρίῳ ἐχρῶντο μὴ ἂν τούς ye ἰσοψήφρυς ἄκοντας, εἰ μή τι 11. 3. 
ἠδίκουν οἷς ἐπήεσαν, ξυστρατεύειν. 

There is a confusion in this sentence. ἄκοντας seems to be a 
condensed expression for ἄκοντας ὥσπερ ξυνεστράτευον ἂν ἄκοντες, εἰ 
μή tA. Cp. i. 38. 4, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιστρατεύομεν ἐκπρεπῶς μὴ καὶ διαφερόν- 
Tes τι ἀδικούμενοι, where similarly ἐκπρεπῶς (according to one expla- 
nation, see note) is equivalent to ἐκπρεπῶς, ὥσπερ ἐκπρεπῶς ἂν ἐπεστρα- 
revoper, Cp. also i. 40. 2, καὶ doris μὴ τοῖς δεξαμένοις, εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, 
πόλεμον ἀντὶ εἰρήνης ποιήσει, and iv. 86 med. οὐδὲ ἀσαφῆ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν 
»ομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, εἰ τὸ πάτριον παρεὶς τὸ πλέον τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἣ τὸ ἔλασσον 
τοῖς πᾶσι δουλώσαιμι. 

All these passages have three characteristics in common, a) there 
is a negative preceding ; δ) there is a hypothetical clause following ; 
and 2), with little or no alteration in the expression, the omission of 
either gives a clear and good sense. E.g. in iv. 86 med. we might 
either say οὐδὲ ἀσαφῆ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, Or καὶ ἀσαφῆ τὴν 
ἐλευθερίαν νομίζοιμι ἂν ἐπιφέρειν εἰ τὸ πάτριον παρείς κιλ. It is im-. 
possible to point out the exact course of thought which the writer 
had in his mind when he became entangled in these perplexities of 
language ; and they may be analysed in various ways. Cp. notes 
on i. 38. 4, 40. 2. 

Amold on i. 38 compares a somewhat similar form of speech 
in a line quoted from Shakespeare by Ben Jonson, though the 
exact words do not occur in our present text (Julius Caesar, Act iii. 
Se. i.)— 

‘Caesar doth never wrong but with just cause ;’ 
i.e. ‘but what he does always has a just cause.’ 

Cp. also Cic. De N. D. ii. 57. 144, ‘Flexuosum iter habet (scil. 

auditus), ne quid intrare possit, si simplex et directum pateret.’ 
M 2 


12. 1. 


12. I. 


164 THUCYDIDES. 


The flaw seems to arise from the attempt to express two sen- 
tences in one. For other forms of this confusion cp. ii. 63. 3, 
and note, οὐδὲ ἐν ἀρχούσῃ πόλει ξυμφέρει ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὑπηκόῳ ἀσφαλῶς 
δουλεύειν : ν. 95, οὐ γὰρ τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς βλάπτει ἡ ἔχθρα ὑμῶν ὅσον ἥ φιλία 
μὲν ἀσθενείας, τὸ δὲ μῖσος δυνάμεως παράδειγμα τοῖς ἀρχομένοις δηλούμενον. 


ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ καὶ τὰ κράτιστα ἐπί τε τοὺς ὑποδεεστέρους πρώτους ξυνεπῆ- 
γον καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα λιπόντες τοῦ ἄλλου περιῃρημένου ἀσθενέστερα ἔμελλον 
ἕξειν. 

The participles τέ, καί connect ξυνεπῆγον with λιπόντες as well as 
with ἔμελλον ἕξειν, πρώτους corresponding to ra τελευταῖα. 

καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα, ‘leaving them to be the last.’ The article marks 
as a distinct class the allies who were left. 


ris οὖν αὕτη ἣ φιλία ἐγίγνετο ἣ ἐλευθερία πιστή ; 

Either 1)* reading ἤ for ἡ before φιλία and taking πιστή closely 
with φιλία and ἐλευθερία, ‘what sort of reliance could be placed 
either on a friendship or on a freedom like this?’ αὕτη is the 
subject. Or 2) reading ἡ φιλία and regarding morn as a sort of 
afterthought, ‘Of what sort then was this friendship or freedom ? 
could it be trusted ?’ 


& re τοῖς ἄλλοις μάλιστα εὔνοια πίστιν βεβαιοῖ, ἡμῖν τοῦτο ὁ φόβος 
ἐχυρὸν παρεῖχε. 

ὅ answers to τοῦτο and is in apposition, either with πίστιν, or 
better, with πίστιν βεβαιοῖ taken as a single word; τοῦτο, scil. τὸ 
βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν πίστι. ‘And that which good will confirms for 
others, namely, their good faith,’ or ‘and that which good will 
assures for others, namely, the confirming of their good faith, that 
to us fear assured.’ 

This passage is verbally, but not really, inconsistent with what 
has preceded, iii. 11 init. rd δὲ ἀντίπαλον δέος μόνον πιστὸν és ξυμμα- 
χίαν. There mutual fear is said to be the only basis of a sure 
alliance, but here it is the mark of a treacherous alliance. The two 
statements are easily reconciled. The fear which is the true basis 
of mutual alliance is that which is founded on equality of power 
and on mutual respect. The false fear which takes the place of 


NOTES, BOOK II. 165 


good will, and which relies upon artifice and flattery, is that in which 12. 1. 
there is no equality; one of the parties is overmatched, though 

both have their reasons for fear and suspicion. The latter is 

the sort of fear which Athens and Mitylene inspired in each other. 

In these and similar passages the mind of the writer goes off upon 

a word which he repeats without considering its effect on the con- 

text. Or there is a false resemblance of sound without sense. 
Compare μέλλησιν, ἀντιμελλῆσαι, just below. 


ὥστε, εἴ τῳ δοκοῦμεν ἀδικεῖν προαποστάντες διὰ τὴν ἐκείνων μέλλησιν 12. 2. 
τῶν ἐς ἡμᾶς δεινῶν, αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἀνταναμείναντες σαφῶς εἰδέναι, εἴ τι αὐτῶν 
ἔσται, οὐκ ὀρθῶς σκοπεῖ. εἰ γὰρ δυνατοὶ ἦμεν ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου καὶ ἀντεπιβου- 
λεῦσαι καὶ ἀντιμελλῆσαι, τί ἔδει ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνοις εἶναι ; ἐπ᾽ 
ἐκείνοις δὲ ὄντος ἀεὶ τοῦ ἐπιχειρεῖν, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν εἶναι δεῖ τὸ προαμύνασθαι. 

ἀντιμελλῆσαι is an echo of μελλησιν, i.e. of the sound but not of 
the sense, for μέλλησις in this passage implies only ‘delay,’ ἀντιμελ- 
λῆσαι, ‘threatening.’ Poppo reads ἀντιμελλῆσαι, but ἀντεπιμελλῆσαι, 
which is found in the majority of MSS., is probably the true read- 
ing. For although there is no authority for such a word, ἐπι- adds 
strength to the idea contained in ἀντιμελλῆσαι, and the parallel with 
ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαι is more precise. 

ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου is a repetition of ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου : a different word is 
used to avoid the appearance of tautology. ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου is not 
however taken immediately with the verb, like ἐκ τοῦ ἴσον in the 
previous clause, but with ὄντας understood. Cp. iv. 10 fin. καὶ οὐκ 
ἐν γῇ στρατός ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου μείζων. 

The argument is that the Lesbians were not on an equality with 
the Athenians, because they were necessarily at their mercy. The 
past tense ἔδει refers to the time of the revolt. 


καὶ ἐνομίζομεν ἀποστήσεσθαι διπλῆν ἀπόστασιν, ἀπό τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων 18. 1. 
μὴ ξὺν κακῶς ποιεῖν αὐτοὺς per ᾿Αθηναίων, ἀλλὰ ξυνελευθεροῦν, ἀπό τε 
᾿Αθηναίων, μὴ αὐτοὶ διαφθαρῆναι ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἐν ὑστέρῳ, ἀλλὰ προποιῆσαι. 

ἧ μέντοι ἀπόστασις ἡμῶν θᾶσσον γεγένηται καὶ ἀπαράσκενος. 

1) Poppo takes the word ἀποστήσεσθαι in the ordinary sense of 
‘revolt’ in both cases, and explains Ἑλλήνων of the Athenian con- 
federacy regarded as distinct from the Athenians themselves. It 


166 THUCYDIDES. 


13. 1. is better with Arnold to suppose 2)* that the word ἀποστήσεσθαι is 
employed in two senses, 4) separation or ‘standing aloof’ from the 
Hellenes, δ) ‘revolt’ from the Athenians. For the former sense 
cp. iv. 118 med. οὐδενὸς yap ἀποστήσονται, ὅσα ἂν δίκαια λέγητε, οὔτε οἱ 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὔτε of ξύμμαχοι : vii. 7 init. εἴ τις... παντάπασιν ἔτι ἀφεστήκει 
τοῦ πολέμους The truth is that the word has a wider signification 
than any single English word, and in this passage denotes a violent 
separation. ‘To tear ourselves away from.’ But the ordinary 
meaning of ἀποστήσεσθαι is not excluded, as is proved by the use 
of the word ἀπόστασις in the following sentence. 

It is rightly observed by Classen that there is a reference to 
c. 10 med. ξύμμαχοι μέντοι ἐγενόμεθα οὐκ ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει τῶν "Ἑλλήνων 
᾿Αθηναίοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερώσει ἀπὸ τοῦ Μήδου τοῖς Ἕλλησι. The wider 
sense of ‘alliance’ adopted there prepares the way for the wider 
sense of ‘revolt’ here. 


13. 5. οὐ yap ἐν τῇ ᾿Αττικῇ ἔσται ὁ πόλεμος, ds τις οἴεται, ἀλλὰ Se ἣν ἡ ᾿Αττικὴ 
ὠφελεῖται. 
δι ἥν, nearly equivalent to ἀφ᾽ fs: cp. iii. 39 fin. τῆς προσόδον 
δι’ ἣν ἰσχύομεν, and note on i. 83. 2, δαπάνης, δι᾽ ἦν τα ὅπλα ὠφελεῖ. 


14.1. ἐν οὗ τῷ ἱερῷ ἴσα καὶ ἱκέται ἐσμέν κιτ.λ. 
ἴσα is here used adverbially, καί as in ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως Κάσπειροι καὶ 
Παρικάνιοι ἐσεσάχατο ὁμοίως καὶ ἐν τῷ πεζῷ (Herod. vii. 86). The 
words ἴσα καὶ ἱκέται are the predicate, not ἴσα simply. Cp. note 
on 1. 25. 4, p. 30. 


14.1. ἴδιον μὲν τὸν κίνδυνον τῶν σωμάτων παραβαλλομένους x.T.A. 
Compare the old Homeric expression, II. ix. 322,— 
αἱὲν ἐμὴν ψυχὴν παραβαλλόμενος πολεμίζειν. 
Lit. ‘we alone exposing the risk of our lives,’ abstract for concrete, 
=‘we alone exposing our lives which we risk.’ 


16. 1, αἰσθύμενοι δὲ αὐτοὺς of ᾿Αθηναῖοι διὰ κατάγνωσιν ἀσθενείας σφῶν 
παρασκεναζομένους x.7.X. 
σφῶν is governed by the verbal sense of κατάγνωσιν, ‘ because 
they imputed weakness to them,’ ὅτι κατέγνωσαν σφῶν ἀσθένειαν. 


NOTES, BOOK 427]. 167 


ὕστερον δὲ ναυτικὸν παρεσκεύαζον ὃ τι πέμψουσιν ἐς τὴν Λέσβον. 16. 35. 
ὃ τι, referring to a definite object, is used when any indefinite or 
general notion, such as that of purpose, ‘which they might send,’ 
is expressed by the relative clause (Jelf, 816. 5. 7). Cp. iv. 22 
init. ξυνέδρους δὲ σφίσιν ἐκέλενον ἑλέσθαι οἵτινες... ξυμβήσονται. 


καὶ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον, ὃν αἱ νῆες ἔπλεον, ἐν τοῖς πλεῖσται δὴ νῆες 17. 1. 
ἅμ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοὶ κάλλει ἐγένοντο, παραπλήσιαι δὲ καὶ ἔτι πλείους 
ἀρχομένου τοῦ πολέμου. τήν τε γὰρ ᾿Αττικὴν καὶ Εὔβοιαν καὶ Σαλαμῖνα 
ἑκατὸν ἐφύλασσον, καὶ περὶ Πελοπόννησον ἕτεραι ἑκατὸν ἦσαν, χωρὶς δὲ αἱ 
περὶ Ποτίδαιαν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις χωρίοις, ὥστε αἱ πᾶσαι ἅμα ἐγίγνοντο ἐν 
ἑνὶ θέρει διακόσιαι καὶ πεντήκοντα .... τὰ μὲν οὖν χρήματα οὕτως ὑπαναλώθη 
τὸ πρῶτον, καὶ νῆες τοσαῦται δὴ πλεῖσται ἐπληρώθησαν. 

Thucydides here says that at this time the Athenians had the 
greatest number of ships ‘effective by their fine condition,’ ἔνεργοι 
κάλλει, ‘which they ever had.’ But to avoid misunderstanding he 
adds that they had about as many or even more at the beginning of 
the war, that is to say in mere numbers, not ‘effective by their fine 
condition.” (Cp. vi. 31 init. παρασκευὴ γὰρ αὕτη... πολυτελεστάτη δὴ 
καὶ εὐπρεπεστάτη τῶν ἐς ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἐγένετο, ἀριθμῷ δὲ νεῶν καὶ 
ὁπλιτῶν καὶ ἡ ἐς ᾿Ἐπίδαυρον μετὰ Περικλέους... οὐκ ἔλασσον ἦν) He is 
thus led on to speak generally of the resources and expenditure 
of Athens at the beginning of the war. πλεῖσται at the end of the 
chapter refers to the number of ships employed in the first year 
(τὸ πρῶτον), not in the fourth. 

ἐν τοῖς πλεῖσται is equivalent to πλεῖσται. The expression 1) may 
arise out of a combination of πλεῖσται and ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις : 
or 2) there may have been originally an ellipse of the participle, ἐν 
τοῖς γενομένοις πλεῖσται ἐγένοντο. Cp. viii. 68 fin. quoted below. Or 3) 
ἐν τοῖς may be simply the demonstrative article, as in the well- 
known use of ro δὲ (τὸ δ᾽ ἦν ἄρα, etc.). The confusion of genders 
must be explained by supposing that, the whole expression being 
considered as one word, the gender of the article or pronoun is lost 
sight of. For the neglect of the concord cp. ἔστιν of. 

This and similar forms are generally periphrases for the super- 
lative, but they may have either an intensive or a qualifying 
sense according to the context. Cp. vii. 24 med. μέγιστον δὲ καὶ ἂν 


17. I. 


168 THUCYDIDES. 


τοῖς πρῶτον ἐκάκωσε τὸ στράτευμα τὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἡ τοῦ Πλημμυρίου 
λῆψις : Vili. 68 fin. καὶ Θηραμένης ὃ τοῦ Ἄγνωνος év τοῖς ξυγκαταλύουσι 
τὸν δῆμον πρῶτος ἦν: viii. 90 init. ᾿Αρίσταρχος, ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα 
καὶ ἐκ πλείστου ἐναντίος τῷ δήμῳ: In these three passages the super- 
lative, if modified at all, has a qualified and not an intensive 
sense. For the capture of Plemmyrium was not the ‘very ’ first 
thing which weakened the Athenian army, and Theramenes and 
Aristarchus were not the ‘very’ foremost among the subverters of 
the democracy. In some other passages the meaning of the 
superlative appears to be intensified. iii. 81 fin. οὕτως apy στάσις 
προὐχώρησε, καὶ ἔδοξε μᾶλλον, διότι ἐν τοῖς πρώτη ἐγένετο, Cp. ili. 85 
init. τοιαύταις ὀργαῖς ταῖς πρώταις ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐχρήσαντο : Plat. Symp. 
178 B, οὕτω πολλαχόθεν ὁμολογεῖται ὁ Ἔρως ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατος εἶναι. 
πρεσβύτατος δὲ ὧν μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν ἡμῖν αἴτιός ἐστον. As different 
meanings suit different passages it is probable that ἐν τοῖς πρῶτος, 
πλεῖστοι x... have all these three meanings: i.e. the 1) simple, 2) 
qualified, 3) intensive superlative. Compare note i. 13. 3 on the 
word μάλιστα. 

€vepyot κάλλει iS a Singular expression, but as there is no variety 
of reading we should hesitate to pronounce it corrupt. It may be 
supported by other somewhat strange uses of the dative with 
adjectives in Thucydides. Compare ii. 52 init. ἐν καλύβαις πνιγηραῖς 
ὥρᾳ ἔτους διαιτωμένων : ii. 65 init. of δὲ δυνατοὶ καλὰ κτήματα κατὰ τὴν 
χώραν οἰκοδομίαις τε καὶ πολυτελέσι κατασκευαῖς ἀπολωλεκότες (if οἰκο- 
δομίαις is not to be explained as a dative of accompaniment) : 
iii, 22 init. τηρήσαντες νύκτα χειμέριον ὕδατι καὶ ἀνέμῳ. 

διακόσιαι καὶ mevrnxovra. The number 250 does not agree with 
the estimate put into the mouth of Pericles, ἀπέφαινε... τριήρεις ras 
πλωίμους τριακοσίας, ii. 13 fin, But Pericles may be speaking of the 
whole number of vessels, including those in the docks, while the 
words of this passage may refer to those on actual service. 

The number of ships mentioned as employed in active service at 
this time is 170. Cp. iii. 3 med. (40), 7 init. (30), 16 init. (100). 
For ships sent out later cp. 18 fin., 19 init. 

There is little or no correspondence between the statements of 
the present passage as to the ships on service in the first year of 
the war, and the accounts given by Thucydides clsewhere. For 


NOTES, BOOK 717. 169 


the ‘hundred ships cruising off the Peloponnesus’ cp. ii. 17 fin. 17. 1. 
But nothing is said in iii. 17 of the thirty ships mentioned in ii. 26 

init. as cruising off Euboea and Locris ; and nothing is said in the 
earlier part of the history of the hundred ships which are here 
described as keeping guard about Attica and Euboea. Seventy 

ships are also said to have been engaged at Potidaea (i. 57 fin., 

61 init.), and no mention is made of their recall (cp. ii. 58), whereas 

here it is implied that only fifty ships were employed at Potidaea 

and in other places. 

The discrepancy with the statement of Pericles would be removed 
if we took ἐν τοῖς πλεῖσται in the sense ‘among the most,’ and 
supplied ἔνεργοι κάλλει with the second clause. But the passage, 
thus explained, is wanting in point. For Thucydides would hardly 
have appended the subsequent discussion to a statement that 
Athens had at this time not ‘the largest,’ but ‘one of the largest’ 
fleets in good condition which she ever had. 


of δὲ αὐτερέται πλεύσαντες τῶν νεῶν ἀφικνοῦνται καὶ περιτειχίζουσι 18. 5. 
Μυτιλήνην ἐν κύκλῳ ἁπλῷ τείχει φρούρια δὲ ἔστιν οἷ ἐπὶ τῶν καρτερῶν 
ἐγκατῳκοδόμηται. 

No satisfactory explanation of the perfect ἐγκατῳκοδόμηται has 
been suggested ; for Thucydides can hardly be supposed to refer, 
without further explanation, to fortifications ‘existing to this day’ 
at a distant place like Mitylene. ἐγκατοικοδομεῖται is the correction 
which departs least from the form of the MSS. and agrees best 
with the context. Cp. the historic presents above ἀφικνοῦνται and 
«εριτειχίζουσι. 


ἐξέπεμψαν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους ἀργυρολόγους ναῦς δώδεκα. 19. 1. 
Cp. note on iv. 50. 1. 


ξυνεμετρήσαντο δὲ ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς τῶν πλίνθων. 20. 3. 

Compare Livy’s account of the taking of Syracuse, xxv. 23, 
which, unless Livy was acquainted with the work of Thucydides, 
exhibits a singular coincidence: ‘Unus ex Romanis ex propinquo 
murum contemplatus, numerando lapides aestimandoque ipse 
secum, quid in fronte paterent singuli, altitudinem muri, quantum 
proxime conjectura poterat, permensus.’ 


THUCYDIDES. 


νον ete stare χαιμέριον ὕδατι καὶ ἀνέμῳ. 
μάζα ἡ χειμὼν νοτερός above. Cp. note on ἔνεργοι κάλλει, 


we Cs se rumepyloy προσέμισγον πρὸς τὰς ἐπάλξεις, εἰδότες ὅτι ἔρημοί 
uy sputue say οἱ τὰς κλίμακας φέροντες καὶ προσέθεσαν. ἔπειτα Ψιλοὶ 
an eae τὰν φεφιδίῳ καὶ θώρακι ἀνέβαινον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο ᾿Αμμέας ὁ Κοροίβου, καὶ 
pwtva ibe dy, μετὰ δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ ἑπόμενοι ἐξ ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερον τῶν πύργων ἀνέ- 
Saccux ‘mera ψιλοὶ ἄλλοι μετὰ τούτους ξὺν δορατίοις ἐχώρουν, οἷς ἕτεροι 
sea τὰν ὠσπίδας ἔφερον, ὅπως ἐκεῖνοι ῥᾷον προσβαίνοιεν, καὶ ἔμελλον 
‘waar, ute πρὸς τοῖς πολεμίοις εἴησαν. 

2 oc exurepor τῶν πύργων ἀνέβαινον must mean, not, as in the 
‘ssrgutah text, ‘six ascending each of the two towers on the right 
ual ‘out,’ but ‘six ascending the wall and proceeding towards 
awd of the two towers,’ ἀνέβαινον being a repetition of ἀνέβαινον 
uwxive. ‘This explanation, though harsh, is rendered necessary 
ἣν the context, for the small body of six could not have mounted 
‘de towers without first killing the guard, and probably could not 
have done so without ladders. 

‘tie words ἐχώρουν and ἀνέβαινον have been transposed, but with- 
out tiegessity, Thucydides describes how the first body of twelve, 
wit they reached the top of the wall following their leader, in two 
γανονν of six cach, proceeded towards the two towers right and left 
a: them ‘These were ‘the forlorn hope,’ armed with breastplates 
yt stagaers only, because they had to fight at once, and not, like 
age ayat, With short spears and shields which were to be handed to 
ague As soon as they had mounted they would rush towards 
Ἂς daha of cither tower, and, first having killed the guards, would 
pevavet the flanks of the main body who were ‘moving onward’ 
yore i.c, scaling the wall in the space between the towers, 
waicn uniny ladders together had been placed there. The rest of 
sy πεν, Who were in the other towers, unti! a noise was made 
tay ati tall ofthe tile, were unconscious of what was happening. 


23 a Φ a 
«οὐ wl τριακόσιοι αὐτῶν ols ἐτέτακτο παραβοηθεῖν, εἴ τι δέοι x.1.d. 


ὑπὸ use af the article is explained by the clause οἷς ἐτέτακτο which 


TELS | 


NOTES, BOOK IT. 171 


οἱ δ᾽ ὑπερβαίνοντες τῶν Πλαταιῶν ἐν τούτῳ (ὡς οἱ πρῶτοι αὐτῶν 28. 1. 


ἀναβεβήκεσαν καὶ τοῦ πύργον ἑκατέρου τοὺς φύλακας διαφθείραντες ἐκεκρα- 
τἠκεσαν), τάς τε διόδους τῶν πύργων ἐνστάντες αἰτοὶ ἐφύλασσον μηδένα δι᾿ 
αὐτῶν ἐπιβοηθεῖν, καὶ κλίμακας προσθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους τοῖς πύργοις καὶ 
ἐπαναβιβάσαντες ἄνδρας πλείους, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πύργων τοὺς ἐπιβοη- 
Govvras καὶ κάτωθεν καὶ ἄνωθεν εἶργον βάλλοντες, οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ οἱ 
πλείους πολλὰς προσθέντες κλίμακας ἅμα καὶ τὰς ἐπάλξεις ἀπώσαντες διὰ 
τοῦ μεταπυργίον ὑπερέβαινον. 

The words οἱ δ᾽ ὑπερβαίνοντες τῶν Πλαταιῶν ἐν τούτῳ refer to the 
whole body. But the words which follow (after the parenthesis ὡς 
οἱ πρῶτοι αὐτῶν... ἐκεκρατήκεσαν) refer only to part of them, viz. a) 
to those who occupied the passages of the towers (rds τε διόδους τῶν 
πύργων ἐνστάντες αὐτοὶ ἐφύλασσον μηδένα δι’ αὐτῶν ἐπιβοηθεῖν), as well 
the ‘forlorn hope,’ οἱ πρῶτοι αὐτῶν, as others; and 4) to those who 
assisted their comrades in mounting the two towers, καὶ κλίμακας 
προσθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους τοῖς πύργοις, καὶ ἐπαναβιβάσαντες ἄνδρας 
πλείους, πλείους, ‘more men,’ not than those who were on the top 
of the towers, for there were none as yet, but than those who 

Occupied the towers, i.e. the passages below. 

The words οἱ μέν---οἱ δέ should, in strict grammatical sequence, 
Indicate a further division of this latter class. But they really return 
to the main subject of ὑπερβαίνοντες, which they now divide ex- 

haustively into those who secured the main body from molestation 

¥ the enemy as they crossed the wall, either from the upper or 
ower part of the towers (of μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πύργων τοὺς ἐπιβοηθοῦντας καὶ 
“érer@ey καὶ ἄνωθεν εἷργον βάλλοντες, resuming all that has gone 
Sef ©Fre), and the main body, who meanwhile crossed under their 
Protection (οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ of πλείους... . ὑπερέβαινον). 
as Ene parenthesis ὡς of πρῶτοι αὐτῶν may end, either at ἐκεκρατήκεσαν 
Prey or at ἐπιβοηθεῖν. The former alternative is the more 
mad og =nable, because the καί before κλίμακας drags if joined with the 

<> lowing, and connects better with the τέ in rds re διόδους. 
on.” ‘taking the place of the enemy’s guard in the towers.’ 
to rve that in the words κλίμακας προσθέντες the ladders are applied 
© towers, in the words πολλὰς προσθέντες κλίμακας to the wall. 


> 
are 


PPA. « ὅτου ἢ βορέου ὑδατώδης μᾶλλον. 


Ἂν ὥσταλλός τε γὰρ ἐπεπήγει οὐ βεβαίως ἐν αὐτῇ ὥστ᾽ ἐπελθεῖν ἀλλ᾽ οἷος 23, 5 


23. 5. 


26. I. 


26. 2. 


26. 3. 


29. 1. 


172 THUCYDIDES. 


The omission of μᾶλλον with ἢ is softened by its occurrence after 
ὑδατώδης. The ice was half water rather than ice, or rather than 
firm (βέβαιος), as might be expected when the wind blew from the 
east rather than from the north. The East wind, blowing from the 
Aegean, was naturally of a gentler character than the North which 
blew from Pindus. 


τὰς ἐς τὴν Μυτιλήνην δύο καὶ τεσσεράκοντα vais ἀπέστειλαν ἔχοντα 
᾿Αλκίδαν, ὃς ἦν αὐτοῖς ναύαρχος, προστάξαντες. 

The ships have been spoken of as only forty in iii. 16 fin., 25 
med. There may have been some addition to the fleet; or Thu- 
cydides is here describing more precisely what he had previously 
mentioned in round numbers. 

In the words which follow either ἔχοντα or προστάξαντες are’ 
superfluous. There is no necessity to alter the reading. The 
pleonasm is no more than ‘they sent in charge of forty-two ships 
Alcidas the Spartan admiral, whom they had appointed commander 
of them.’ 


ὑπὲρ Παυσανίου τοῦ Πλειστοάνακτος υἱέος. 
Pleistoanax was at this time exiled from Lacedaemon. Cp. ii. 
21 init., v. 16 fin. 


ἐδήωσαν δὲ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς τά TE πρότερον τετμημένα, καὶ εἴ τι ἐβεβλα- 
στήκει, καὶ ὅσα ἐν ταῖς πρὶν ἐσβολαῖς παρελέλειπτο. 

καί before εἴ τι is omitted by some editors, but there is no 
variation in the MSS. 1)* It may describe the same act of de- 
struction under two different aspects, ré being joined, not with the 
first but with the second καί, καὶ ὅσα κιτλ. ‘They ravaged what 
they had ravaged before, and whatever had sprung up afresh they 
destroyed it.’ For a similar use of καί compare note on i. 80. 2. 

Or 2) three cases may be described. The Peloponnesians 
destroyed a) what they had ravaged before, i.e. anything which 
they had spared in their previous invasion; 4) what had grown 
up again, in the parts then visited by them; and c) they devastated 
regions hitherto untouched. 


τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ᾿Αθηναίους λανθάνουσι, πρὶν δὴ TH Δήλῳ ἔσχον, 


NOTES, BOOK III. 173 


προσμίξαντες δ᾽ ax’ αὐτῆς τῇ ᾿Ικάρῳ καὶ Μυκόνῳ πυνθάνονται πρῶτον, ὅτι 29. 1. 
ἡ Μυτιλήνη ξάλωκε. 

The sending out of a hundred ships is mentioned in iii. 16 init. 
and of thirty in iii. 7 init. But this was in the preceding year, and 
the return of the hundred ships is distinctly mentioned (c. 16 fin.). 
No special fleet seems to be referred to in this passage, but only 
guardships, ii. 24 init. φυλακὰς κατεστήσαντο κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλασ- 
σαν, or merchantmen, or the Salaminia and Paralus mentioned in 
iii. 33 init. πρὶν δή κτλ. Not implying that they were sighted by 
the Athenians at Delos, but that they had now got safely over the 
part of their voyage in which they were most likely to be sighted. 

Ικάρῳ καὶ Muxdvw, see Introduction on the Geography of 
Thucydides. 


καὶ μὴ ἀποκνήσωμεν τὸν κίνδυνον, νομίσαντες οὐκ ἄλλο τι εἶναι TO καινὸν 80. 4. 
τοῦ πολέμον ἣ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὃ εἴ τις στρατηγὸς ἔν τε αὑτῷ φυλάσσοιτο καὶ 
τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐνορῶν ἐπιχειροίη, πλεῖστ᾽ ἂν ὀρθοῖτο. 

τὸ καινόν, the unknown or surprising element in war. One or 
two MSS. read τὸ κενόν, with little or no meaning. τὸ κοινόν might 
also be suggested, ‘the element in war which equally affects all.’ 
Compare, in the Melian controversy, v. 102, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστάμεθα τὰ τῶν 

πολέμων ἔστιν ὅτε κοινοτέρας τὰς τύχας λαμβάνοντα K.7.A, 

There is a similar variation between καινά and κενά in Arist. Eth. 
Ic. iii, 11 (8). 6, δοκεῖ yap εἶναι πολλὰ κενὰ τοῦ πολέμου, ἃ μάλιστα 
σα χιρράκασιν οὗτοι (scil. οἱ στρατιῶται), and in many other passages 
Of CRG fferent authors (Classen). 

Πῶς τοιοῦτον, i.e. ‘such an enterprise as I propose, which is attended 


wi ys , , 
2tky danger :’ with a reference to μὴ ἀποκνήσωμεν τὸν κίνδυνον. 


Ee: makes little difference whether we suppose τὸ καινόν, which is the 
“> emphatic word, to be the antecedent to ὅ, or τὸ τοιοῦτον, which 


cet . ° “ . 
> wre immediately’precedes. 6, so far as it follows φυλάσσοιτο, is 
tin. 


act of surprise ; so far as it follows ἐνορῶν it is used with some 
== ree of inexactness for the opportunity of the surprise, or the 


χὰ 
“> S2zligence which gives that opportunity. 


“<Tdos δέ τινες τῶν an’ Ἰωνίας φυγάδων καὶ of Λέσβιοι ξυμπλέοντες 21.Ζ 
Ὃς ee e 9 a 4 » “ 2 ¢ ° ᾿ 
Eayvovy, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτον τὸν κίνδυνον φοβεῖται, τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιωνίᾳ πόλεων κατα- 


91]. 1. 


174 THUCYDIDES. 


λαβεῖν τινα ἣ Κύμην τὴν Αἰολίδα, ὅπως ἐκ πόλεως ὁρμώμενοι τὴν ᾿Ιωνίαν 
ἀποστήσωσιν (ἔλπίδα δ' εἶναι" οὐδενὶ γὰρ ἀκουσίως ἀφῖχθαι.) καὶ τὴν 
πρόσοδον ταύτην μεγίστην οὖσαν ᾿Αθηναίων ἣν ὑφέλωσι, καὶ ἅμα ἣν 
ἐφορμοῦσιν αὐτοῖς δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται" πείσειν τε οἴεσθαι καὶ Ἰπισ- 
σούθνην ὥστε ξυμπολεμεῖν. 

ἣν ἐφορμοῦσιν αὐτοῖς δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται is the reading adopted. 
There is less authority for σφίσι δαπάνη or αὐτούς. ἐφορμοῦσιν is ἃ 
conjecture, all the MSS. reading ἐφορμῶσιν. The alteration, though 
not absolutely necessary, is very slight and gives a better sense. 

1)* The Ionians and Lesbians mean to say, 4) that the Pelopon- 
nesians might cut off a main source of Athenian revenue if they 
induced Ionia to revolt; 4) that, even though they incurred some 
expense, the attempt would be worth making; ¢) that Pissuthnes the 
satrap might be persuaded to assist them, meaning, probably, that 
he would provide them with money. This might be set against 
the expense incurred (δαπάνη). Cp. iii. 34 init. whence it appears 
that Pissuthnes did assist with auxiliaries the party at Colophon 
which was opposed to the Athenians. 

The main confusion lies in the second of these clauses, καὶ ἅμα 
«. «γίγνηται, which is to be subordinated to the previous words καὶ 
ry... ὑφέλωσι. καὶ dua fy=‘although.’ The apodosis of ἣν ὑφέλωσιε 
is suppressed, or rather anticipated in ἐλπίδα εἶναι, which is to be 
repeated after καί in some different form, such as καλῶς ἕξειν. This 
is not a strictly grammatical explanation, but is the best way of 
analysing, πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, the course of thought in the mind of 
Thucydides. 

αὐτοῖς refers to the Athenians, σφίσι to the Peloponnesians ; 
époppotuw αὐτοῖς appears to be the dative of the reason, ‘ by reason 
of their blockading,’ or (ἐφορμῶσιν) ‘ attacking them.’ 

Or 2) the MS. reading ἐφορμῶσι is retained, and taken as the 
subjunctive after qv, and δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται is dependent upon ὅπως, 
δαπάνη being explained, not of expense, but of the means of meet- 
ing expense: ‘and that if they deprive Athens of this great source 
of revenue—even if’ (or, ‘ and also if’) ‘they, the Athenians, block- 
ade them, they, the Peloponnesians, may have the means of meet- 
ing the expense.’ But a) ὅπως is too far off, or rather separated by 
too many subordinate clauses, and ὁ) the meaning assigned to 


NOTES, BOOK 117. 175 


δαπάνη is not justified by the context, as in i 83 init. καὶ ἔστιν ὁ 81, 1. 
“πτόλεμος οὐχ ὅπλων τὸ πλέον ἀλλὰ δαπάνης, & ἣν τὰ ὅπλα ὠφελεῖ: 1. 99 

fin. καὶ τοῖς μὲν Ἀθηναίοις ηὔξετο τὸ ναυτικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς δαπάνης ἣν ἐκεῖνοι 
ξυμφέροιεν: viii. 37 fin. ὁπόση 8 ἂν στρατιὰ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ βασιλέως ἧ, 
μεταπεμψαμένου βασιλέως, τὴν δαπάνην βασιλέα παρέχειν. And c) there 

is the further objection that σφίσιν and αὐτοῖς are referred to the 
same persons. ‘This might be avoided if we suppose the Pelo- 
ponnesians to blockade the Athenians. But such a revolution in 

the situation at this period of the war is quite inconceivable. 

Or 3) δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται may still be dependent on ὅπως, but 
the word δαπάνη taken in its usual sense, the Athenians being the 
subject of ἐφορμῶσι, and σφίσι referring to them and αὐτοῖς to the 
Peloponnesians: ‘and that, if they deprive the Athenians of this 
great source of revenue, and at the same time if they,’ the Athe- 
nians, ‘ blockade the Peloponnesians, they,’ the Athenians, ‘ may 
themselves incur expense.’ This explanation is supported by the 
comparison of iii. 33 fin., where Paches the Athenian commander 
congratulates himself on having escaped the necessity of blockading 
the Peloponnesian fleet. But a) σφίσι cannot refer to the Athe- 
nians, although they are the subject of ἐφορμῶσι: for the whole 
clause δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται is connected by ὅπως with the prin- 
cipal subject. And δ) there is an awkward change of subject in 
the clauses ἣν ὑφέλωσι and ἣν ἐφορμῶσι, which, according to this 
interpretation, are parallel in sense. 

The last two explanations are greatly assisted by leaving out 
the ἥν before ὑφέλωσι, which is then dependent on ὅπως and 
parallel to ἀποστήσωσιν. But there is still a flaw in the word ὑφέλωσι, 
which is too weak to express the purpose indicated by ὅπως. Two 
important MSS. (It. Vat.), and a third of less authority, Reg., read 
ἀφέλωσι. 

Or 4) the apodosis to the whole sentence is found in the last 
clause, πείσειν re οἴεσθαι καὶ Πισσούθνην ὥστε ξυμπολεμεῖν. But this 
explanation, besides being somewhat wanting in point (for the 
adherence of Pissuthnes was not the main object of the Lacedae- 
monians but only a means to it) gives no sense to the particle τέ. 
Yet it may be argued, on the other hand, that, as fifteen years after- 
wards, the money of Persia seemed essential to carrying on the 


21. 1. 


32. 1. 


32. 2. 


94. 1. 


96. 2. 


176 THUCYDIDES. 


war with success; and that the τέ may be explained by an obscure 
connection with the words ὅπως ἀποστήσωσι τὴν ᾿Ιωνίαν (cp. note on 
i. 9. 3. p. 13), ‘that they might induce Ionia to revolt; and if they 
deprived the Athenians of this great source of revenue, etc., they 
thought that they might also induce Pissuthnes to join them.’ 

On the whole 1), which is adopted in the English text, seems 
the best of these and some other alternatives. 


τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους, ols κατὰ πλοῦν εἴληφει, ἀπέσφαξε τοὺς πολλούς. 


For similar cruelties cp. ii. 67 fin. 


ἀτειχίστον yap οὔσης τῆς ᾿Ιωνίας μέγα τὸ δέος ἐγένετο μὴ παραπλέοντες 
οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι, εἰ καὶ ds μὴ διενοοῦντο μένειν, πορθῶσιν ἅμα προσπίε- 
τοντες τὰς πόλεις. 

καὶ ὥς, 1)* ‘even although they might plunder them.’ ὥς refers to 
πορθῶσιν which follows, not 2) to the unwalled state of Ionia (dre- 
χίστου yap οὔσης τῆς Ἰωνίας), which, though it would be an inducement 
to the Peloponnesians to plunder, would not be an inducement to 
remain. Or 3) καὶ ὥς is simply equivalent to ‘in any case,’ as in 
i. 44 med. ἐδόκει yap ὁ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους πόλεμος καὶ ὡς ἔσεσθαι 
αὐτοῖς : viil. 51 med. καὶ οἱ μὲν τὸν τειχισμόν τε παρεσκενάζοντο, καὶ ἐκ 


ζω Α td ~ 
τοῦ τοιούτου Kat ὡς μέλλουσα Σάμος θᾶσσον ἐτειχίσθη. 


παραπλέων δὲ πάλιν ἔσχε καὶ ἐς Νότιον τὸ Κολοφωνίων, οὗ κατῴκηντο 
Κολοφώνιοι τῆς ἄνω πόλεως ἑαλωκυίας ὑπὸ ᾿Ιταμάνους καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων 
κατὰ στάσιν ἰδίαν ἐπαχθέντων. 

There is no reason for altering ἰδίαν to ἰδίᾳ, although the expres- 
sion στάσις ἰδία is obscure. It probably refers to some local or 
family quarrel, as distinct either from a more general movement 
on the part of the government of the town, or from the great strife 
between oligarchy and democracy. 


καὶ προσξυνεβάλετο οὐκ ἐλάχιστον τῆς ὁρμῆς at Πελοπογνησίων vies és 
Ἰωνίαν ἐκείνοις βοηθοὶ τολμήσασαι παρακινδυνεῦσαι. 

προσξυνεβάλετο, and not προσξυνελάβετο, προσξυνελάβοντο or προσξυν- 
εβάλοντο (adopted by Poppo), which all alike rest on weaker MS. 
authority, is probably the true reading. The genitive τῆς ὁρμῆς is 


NOTES, BOOK 777. 177 


governed or partly governed by οὐκ ἐλάχιστον, though it may also 36. 2. 

be a partitive genitive after rpoofuveBdAero. Cp. Eur. Med. 284,— 
ξυμβάλλεται δὲ πολλὰ τοῦδε δείματος. 

‘ The greater part of this strong feeling was caused by the fact 

that,’ or ‘it conduced greatly to this strong feeling that.’ There 

is no difficulty in the use of the singular προσξυνεβάλετο, for αἱ 

νῆες τολμήσασαι::Ξ:τὸ τὰς vais τολμῆσαι. 


καὶ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ μετάνοιά τις εὐθὺς ἦν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναλογισμὸς ὠμὸν τὸ 86. 4. 
βούλευμα καὶ μέγα ἐγνῶσθαι πόλιν ὅλην διαφθεῖραι μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ τοὺς 
αἰτίους. 

Cp. ii. 62 med. μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ κήπιον καὶ ἐγκαλλώπισμα πλούτου. The 
words μᾶλλον ἣ οὐ occur repeatedly, not only in Herodotus, but in 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the imitator of Thucydides. The 
expression is most easily explained as a confusion of # οὐ with καὶ οὐ 
or ἀλλ᾽ οὐ. In other words, the negation of the following clause im- 
plied in ἢ is repeated in a more definite form; generally (see ex- 
amples in Jelf, 749. 3), where a negative has preceded; here the 
negation is implied in ὠμόν. Cp. the French, ‘il n’écrit pas mieux 
cette année-ci qu'il ne faisait année passée,’ and the Italian, 
‘tuo padre ha pit potenza sopra di me che non il tuo amico.’ 


ob σκοποῦντες, ὅτι rupavviba ἔχετε τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ mpds ἐπιβουλεύοντας 37. 2. 
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἄκοντας ἀρχομένους, ot οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἂν χαρίζησθε βλαπτόμενοι αὐτοὶ 
ἀκροῶνται ὑμῶν K.T A. 

ot, which is here supplied, is wanting in nearly all the MSS. It is 
possible also to supply καί before οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἂν χαρίζησθε, or to change 
οὐκ into ovvé, It is not however certain that any emendation is 
necessary, either here or at iv. 10 init. where ὅ has been similarly 
inserted by Poppo and other editors. The clause οὐκ ἐξ dy... ὑμῶν 
may be regarded as an epexegesis of ἄκοντας... ἀρχομένους, aS in 
iv. 10, μενόντων ἡμῶν ξύμμαχον γίγνεται may likewise be an epexegesis 
of τὸ δυσέμβατον ἡμέτερον νομίζω. Cp. ii. 60 med. καὶ μὴ ὃ viv ὑμεῖς 
δρᾶτε, ταῖς κατ᾽ οἶκον κακοπραγίαις ἐκπεπληγμένοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς σωτηρίας 


ἀφίεσθε. 


θαυμάζω δὲ καὶ ὅστις ἔσται ὁ ἀντερῶν καὶ ἀξιώσων ἀποφαίνειν τὰς μὲν 88. I. 
VOL. I. N 


17, 1. 


168 THUCYDIDES. 


τοῖς πρῶτον ἐκάκωσε τὸ στράτευμα τὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἡ τοῦ Πλημμυρίου 
λῆψις : viii. 68 fin. καὶ Θηραμένης ὁ τοῦ “Ayvovos ἐν τοῖς ξυγκαταλύουσι 
τὸν δῆμον πρῶτος ἦν: viii. 90 init. ᾿Αρίσταρχος, ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα 
καὶ ἐκ πλείστου ἐναντίος τῷ δήμῳ: In these three passages the super- 
lative, if modified at all, has a qualified and not an intensive 
sense. For the capture of Plemmyrium was not the ‘very’ first 
thing which weakened the Athenian army, and Theramenes and 
Aristarchus were not the ‘very’ foremost among the subverters of 
the democracy. In some other passages the meaning of the 
superlative appears to be intensified. ii. 81 fin. οὕτως ὠμὴ στάσις 
προὐχώρησε, καὶ ἔδοξε μᾶλλον, διότι ἐν τοῖς πρώτη ἐγένετο, Cp. ili. 85 
init. τοιαύταις ὀργαῖς ταῖς πρώταις ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐχρήσαντο : Plat. Symp. 
178 B, οὕτω πολλαχόθεν ὁμολογεῖται ὁ Ἔρως ἐν τοῖς πρεσβύτατος εἶναι. 
πρεσβύτατος δὲ ὧν μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν ἡμῖν αἴτιός ἐστιν. ΑΞ different 
meanings suit different passages it is probable that ἐν τοῖς πρῶτος, 
πλεῖστοι κιτιλ, have all these three meanings: i.e. the 1) simple, 2) 
qualified, 3) intensive superlative. Compare note i. 13. 3 on the 
word μάλιστα. 

ἔνεργοι κάλλει is a Singular expression, but as there is no variety 
of reading we should hesitate to pronounce it corrupt. It may be 
supported by other somewhat strange uses of the dative with 
adjectives in Thucydides. Compare ii. 52 init. ἐν καλύβαις πνιγηραῖς 
Gpa ἔτους διαιτωμένων: ii. 65 init. of δὲ δυνατοὶ καλὰ κτήματα κατὰ τὴν 
χώραν οἰκοδομίαις τε καὶ πολυτελέσι κατασκευαῖς ἀπολωλεκότες (if οἶκο- 
δομίαις is not to be explained as a dative of accompaniment): 
iii, 22 init. τηρήσαντες νύκτα χειμέριον ὕδατι καὶ ἀνέμῳ. 

διακόσιαι καὶ πεντήκοντα. The number 250 does not agree with 
the estimate put into the mouth of Pericles, ἀπέφαινε... τριήρεις ras 
πλωίμους τριακοσίας, il. 13 fin. But Pericles may be speaking of the 
whole number of vessels, including those in the docks, while the 
words of this passage may refer to those on actual service. 

The number of ships mentioned as employed in active service at 
this time is 170. Cp. iii. 3 med. (40), 7 init. (30), 16 init. (100). 
For ships sent out later cp. 18 fin., 19 init. 

There is little or no correspondence between the statements of 
the present passage as to the ships on service in the first year of 
the war, and the accounts given by Thucydides elsewhere. For 


NOTES, BOOK II. 169 


the ‘hundred ships cruising off the Peloponnesus’ cp. ii. 17 fin. 17. 1. 
But nothing is said in iii. 17 of the thirty ships mentioned in ii. 26 

init. as cruising off Euboea and Locris ; and nothing is said in the 
earlier part of the history of the hundred ships which are here 
described as keeping guard about Attica and Euboea. Seventy 
ships are also said to have been engaged at Potidaea (i. 57 fin., 

61 init.), and no mention is made of their recall (cp. ii. 58), whereas 

here it is implied that only fifty ships were employed at Potidaea 
and in other places. 

The discrepancy with the statement of Pericles would be removed 
if we took ἐν τοῖς πλεῖσται in the sense ‘among the most, and 
supplied ἔνεργοι κάλλει with the second clause. But the passage, 
thus explained, is wanting in point. For Thucydides would hardly 
have appended the subsequent discussion to a statement that 
Athens had at this time not ‘the largest,’ but ‘one of the largest’ 
fleets in good condition which she ever had. 


of δὲ αὐτερέται πλεύσαντες τῶν νεῶν ἀφικνοῦνται καὶ περιτειχίζουσι 18. 5. 
Μυτιλήνην ἐν κύκλῳ ἁπλῷ τείχει" φρούρια δὲ ἔστιν οἷ ἐπὶ τῶν καρτερῶν 
ἐγκατῳκοδόμηται. 

No satisfactory explanation of the perfect ἐγκατῳκοδόμηται has 
been suggested ; for Thucydides can hardly be supposed to refer, 
without further explanation, to fortifications ‘existing to this day’ 
at a distant place like Mitylene. ἐγκατοικοδομεῖται is the correction 
which departs least from the form of the MSS. and agrees best 
with the context. Cp. the historic presents above ἀφικνοῦνται and 


περιτειχίζουσι. 


ἐξέπεμψαν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους ἀργυρολόγους ναῦς δώδεκα. 19. 1. 
Cp. note on iv. 50. 1. 


ξυνεμετρήσαντο δὲ ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς τῶν πλίνθων. 20. 3. 

Compare Livy’s account of the taking of Syracuse, xxv. 23, 
which, unless Livy was acquainted with the work of Thucydides, 
exhibits a singular coincidence: ‘Unus ex Romanis ex propinquo 
murum contemplatus, numerando lapides aestimandoque ipse 
secum, quid in fronte paterent singuli, altitudinem muri, quantum 
proxime conjectura poterat, permensus.’ 


23. 1. 


22. 3. 


42, 7. 


170 THUCYDIDES. 


τηρήσαντες νύκτα χειμέριον ὕδατι Kai ἀνέμῳ. 
Explained by χειμὼν νοτερός above. Cp. note on ἔνεργοι κάλλει, 
li, 17. 1. 


κατὰ οὖν μεταπύργιον προσέμισγον πρὸς Tas ἐπάλξεις, εἰδότες Gre Epnpot 
εἰσι, πρῶτον μὲν οἱ τὰς κλίμακας φέροντες καὶ προσέθεσαν. ἔπειτα Ψιλοὶ 
δώδεκα ξὺν ξιφιδίῳ καὶ θώρακι ἀνέβαινον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο ᾿Αμμέας ὁ Κοροίβου, καὶ 
πρῶτος ἀνέβη, μετὰ δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ ἑπόμενοι ἐξ ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερον τῶν πύργων ἀνέ- 
βαινον᾽ ἔπειτα ψιλοὶ ἄλλοι μετὰ τούτους ξὺν δορατίοις ἐχώρουν, οἷς ἕτεροι 
κατόπιν τὰς ἀσπίδας ἔφερον, ὅπως ἐκεῖνοι ῥᾷον προσβαίνοιεν, καὶ ἔμελλον 
δώσειν, ὁπότε πρὸς τοῖς πολεμίοις εἴησαν. 

ἐξ ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερον τῶν πύργων ἀνέβαινον Must mean, not, as in the 
English text, ‘six ascending each of the two towers on the right 
and left,’ but ‘six ascending the wall and proceeding towards 
each of the two towers,’ ἀνέβαινον being a repetition of ἀνέβαινον 
above. This explanation, though harsh, is rendered necessary 
by the context, for the small body of six could not have mounted 
the towers without first killing the guard, and probably could not 
have done so without ladders. 

The words ἐχώρουν and ἀνέβαινον have been transposed, but with- 
out necessity. Thucydides describes how the first body of twelve, 
when they reached the top of the wall following their leader, in two 
parties of six each, proceeded towards the two towers right and left 
of them. These were ‘the forlorn hope,’ armed with breastplates 
and daggers only, because they had to fight at once, and not, like 
the rest, with short spears and shields which were to be handed to 
them. As soon as they had mounted they would rush towards 
the δίοδος of either tower, and, first having killed the guards, would 
protect the flanks of the main body who were ‘ moving onward’ 
(ἐχώρουν), i.e. scaling the wall in the space between the towers, 
when many ladders together had been placed there. The rest of 
the guards, who were in the other towcrs, unti! a noise was made 
by the fall of the tile, were unconscious of what was happening. 


Kai οἷ τριακόσιοι αὐτῶν ois ἐτέτακτο παραβοηθεῖν, εἴ τι δέοι x.7.d. 
The use of the article is explained by the clause οἷς ἐτέτακτο which 
follows. 


NOTES, BOOK III. [71 


οἱ δ᾽ ὑπερβαίνοντες τῶν Πλαταιῶν ἐν τούτῳ (ὡς οἱ πρῶτοι αὐτῶν 28. 1. 
ἀναβεβήκεσαν καὶ τοῦ πύργου ἑκατέρου τοὺς φύλακας διαφθείραντες ἐκεκρα- 
τἠκεσαν), τάς τε διόδους τῶν πύργων ἐνστάντες αὐτοὶ ἐφύλασσον μηδένα δι᾽ 
αὐτῶν ἐπ iy, καὶ κλίμακας προσθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους τοῖς πύργοις καὶ 
ἐπαναβιβάσαντες ἄνδρας πλείους, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πύργων τοὺς ἐπιβοη- 
θοῦντας καὶ κάτωθεν καὶ ἄνωθεν εἶργον βάλλοντες, οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ οἱ 
πλείους πολλὰς προσθέντες κλίμακας ἅμα καὶ τὰς ἐπάλξεις ἀπώσαντες διὰ 
τοῦ peranupyiov ὑπερέβαινον. 

The words οἱ δ᾽ ὑπερβαίνοντες τῶν Πλαταιῶν ἐν τούτῳ refer to the 
whole body. But the words which follow (after the parenthesis ὡς 
οἱ πρῶτοι atrav... ἐκεκρατήκεσαν) refer only to part of them, viz. a) 
to those who occupied the passages of the towers (rds te διόδους τῶν 
πύργων ἐνστάντες αὐτοὶ ἐφύλασσον μηδένα δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἐπιβοηθεῖν), as well 
the ‘forlorn hope,’ οἱ πρῶτοι αὐτῶν, as others; and ὁ) to those who 
assisted their comrades in mounting the two towers, καὶ κλίμακας 
προσθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους τοῖς πύργοις, καὶ ἐπαναβιβάσαντες ἄνδρας 
πλείους. πλείους, ‘more men,’ not than those who were on the top 
of the towers, for there were none as yet, but than those who 
occupied the towers, i.e. the passages below. 

The words οἱ pév—ol δέ should, in strict grammatical sequence, 
indicate a further division of this latter class. But they really return 
to the main subject of ὑπερβαίνοντες, which they now divide ex- 
haustively into those who secured the main body from molestation 
by the enemy as they crossed the wall, either from the upper or 
lower part of the towers (οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πύργων τοὺς ἐπιβοηθοῦντας καὶ 
κάτωθεν καὶ ἄνωθεν εἶργον βάλλοντες, resuming all that has gone 
before), and the main body, who meanwhile crossed under their 
protection (οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ of πλείους... . ὑπερέβαινον). 

The parenthesis ὡς οἱ πρῶτοι αὐτῶν may end, either at ἐκεκρατήκεσαν 
as above, or at ἐπιβοηθεῖν. The former alternative is the more 
probable, because the καί before κλίμακας drags if joined with the 
καί following, and connects better with the τέ in τάς re διόδους. 

αὐτοί, ‘taking the place of the enemy’s guard in the towers.’ 
Observe that in the words κλίμακας προσθέντες the ladders are applied 
to the towers, in the words πολλὰς προσθέντες κλίμακας to the wall. 


κρύσταλλός τε γὰρ ἐπεπήγει ov βεβαίως ἐν αὐτῇ ὥστ᾽ ἐπελθεῖν ἀλλ᾽ οἷος 42, 5 
ἀπηλιώτου ἢ βορέου ὑδατώδης μᾶλλον. 


22. 5. 


26. 1. 


26. 2. 


26. 3. 


29. I. 


172 THUCYDIDES. 


The omission of μᾶλλον with ἢ is softened by its occurrence after 
ὑδατώδης. The ice was half water rather than ice, or rather than 
firm (βέβαιος), as might be expected when the wind blew from the 
east rather than from the north. The East wind, blowing from the 
Aegean, was naturally of a gentler character than the North which 
blew from Pindus. 


τὰς ἐς τὴν Μυτιλήνην δύο καὶ τεσσεράκοντα vais ἀπέστειλαν ἔχοντα 
᾿Αλκίδαν, ὃς ἦν αὐτοῖς ναύαρχος, προστάξαντες. 

The ships have been spoken of as only forty in iii. 16 fin., 25 
med. ‘There may have been some addition to the fleet; or Thu- 
cydides is here describing more precisely what he had previously 
mentioned in round numbers. 

In the words which follow either ἔχοντα or προστάξαντες are’ 
superfluous. There is no necessity to alter the reading. The 
pleonasm is no more than ‘they sent in charge of forty-two ships 
Alcidas the Spartan admiral, whom they had appointed commander 
of them.’ 


ὑπὲρ Παυσανίου τοῦ Πλειστοάνακτος υἱέος. 
Pleistoanax was at this time exiled from Lacedaemon. Cp. ii. 
21 init., v. 16 fin. 


ἐδήωσαν δὲ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς τά τε πρότερον τετμημένα, καὶ εἴ τι ἐβεβλα- 
στήκει, καὶ ὅσα ἐν ταῖς πρὶν ἐσβολαῖς παρελέλειπτο. 

καί before εἴ re is omitted by some editors, but there is no 
variation in the MSS. 1)* It may describe the same act of de- 
struction under two different aspects, ré being joined, not with the 
first but with the second καί, καὶ ὅσα «.r.A. ‘They ravaged what 
they had ravaged before, and whatever had sprung up afresh they 
destroyed it.’ Fora similar use of καί compare note on i. 80. 2. 

Or 2) three cases may be described. The Peloponnesians 
destroyed a) what they had ravaged before, i.e. anything which 
they had spared in their previous invasion; 4) what had grown 
up again, in the parts then visited by them; and c) they devastated 
regions hitherto untouched. 


τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ᾿Αθηναίους λανθάνουσι, πρὶν δὴ τῇ Δήλῳ ἔσχον, 


NOTES, BOOK III. 173 


προσμίξαντες δ᾽ an’ αὐτῆς τῇ ᾿Ικάρῳ καὶ Μυκόνῳ πυνθάνονται πρῶτον, ὅτι 29. 1. 
ἡ Μυτιλήνη éddoxe. 

The sending out of a hundred ships is mentioned in iii. 16 init. 
and of thirty in iii. 7 init. But this was in the preceding year, and 
the return of the hundred ships is distinctly mentioned (c. 16 fin.). 
No special fleet seems to be referred to in this passage, but only 
guardships, ii. 24 init. φυλακὰς κατεστήσαντο κατὰ γὴν καὶ κατὰ θάλασ- 
σαν, or merchantmen, or the Salaminia and Paralus mentioned in 
iii. 33 init. πρὶν δή κτλ. Not implying that they were sighted by 
the Athenians at Delos, but that they had now got safely over the 
part of their voyage in which they were most likely to be sighted. 

᾿κάρῳ καὶ Muxdvw, see Introduction on the Geography of 
Thucydides. 


καὶ μὴ ἀποκνήσωμεν τὸν κίνδυνον, νομίσαντες οὐκ ἄλλο τι εἶναι τὸ καινὸν 80. 4. 
τοῦ πολέμου ἣ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὃ εἴ τις στρατηγὸς ἔν τε αὑτῷ φυλάσσοιτο καὶ 
τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐνορῶν ἐπιχειροίη, πλεῖστ᾽ ἂν ὀρθοῖτο. 

τὸ καινόν, the unknown or surprising element in war. One or 
two MSS. read τὸ κενόν, with little or no meaning. τὸ κοινόν might 
also be suggested, ‘the element in war which equally affects all.’ 
Compare, in the Melian controversy, v. 102, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστάμεθα τὰ τῶν 
πολέμων ἔστιν ὅτε κοινοτέρας ras τύχας λαμβάνοντα x.7.X. 

There is a similar variation between καινά and κενά in Arist. Eth. 
Nic. iii. 11 (8). 6, δοκεῖ yap εἶναι πολλὰ κενὰ τοῦ πολέμου, ἃ μάλιστα 
συνεωράκασιν οὗτοι (scil. οἱ στρατιῶται), and in many other passages 
of different authors (Classen). 

τὸ τοιοῦτον, i.e. ‘such an enterprise as I propose, which is attended 
with danger :’ with a reference to μὴ ἀποκνήσωμεν τὸν κίνδυνον. 

It makes little difference whether we suppose τὸ καινόν, which is the 
more emphatic word, to be the antecedent to 4, or τὸ τοιοῦτον, which 
more immediately'precedes. 4, so far as it follows φυλάσσοιτο, is 
the act of surprise; so far as it follows ἐνορῶν it is used with some 
degree of inexactness for the opportunity of the surprise, or the 
negligence which gives that opportunity. 


ἄλλοι δέ τινες τῶν an’ ᾿Ιωνίας φυγάδων καὶ of Λέσβιοι ξυμπλέοντες 3), 7. 


παρήνουν, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτον τὸν κίνδυνον φοβεῖται, τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιωνίᾳ πόλεων κατα- 


81. 1. 


174 THUCYDIDES. 


λαβεῖν τινα ἣ Κύμην τὴν Αἰολίδα, ὅπως ἐκ πόλεως ὁρμώμενοι τὴν ᾿Ιωνίαν 
ἀποστήσωσιν (ἐλπίδα δ᾽ εἶναι" οὐδενὶ γὰρ ἀκουσίως ἀφῖχθαι,) καὶ τὴν 
πρόσοδον ταύτην μεγίστην οὖσαν ᾿Αθηναίων ἣν ὑφέλωσι, καὶ ἅμα ἣν 
ἐφορμοῦσιν αὐτοῖς δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται" πείσειν τε οἴεσθαι καὶ Πισ- 
σούθνην ὥστε ξυμπολεμεῖν. 

ἣν ἐφορμοῦσιν αὐτοῖς δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται is the reading adopted. 
There is less authority for σφίσι δαπάνη or αὐτούς. ἐφορμοῦσιν is ἃ 
conjecture, all the MSS. reading ἐφορμῶσιν. The alteration, though 
not absolutely necessary, is very slight and gives a better sense. 

1)* The Ionians and Lesbians mean to say, 4) that the Pelopon- 
nesians might cut off a main source of Athenian revenue if they 
induced Ionia to revolt; 4) that, even though they incurred some 
expense, the attempt would be worth making; c) that Pissuthnes the 
satrap might be persuaded to assist them, meaning, probably, that 
he would provide them with money. This might be set against 
the expense incurred (δαπάνη). Cp. iii. 34 init. whence it appears 
that Pissuthnes did assist with auxiliaries the party at Colophon 
which was opposed to the Athenians. 

The main confusion lics in the second of these clauses, καὶ ἅμα 
οὐν γίγνηται, which is to be subordinated to the previous words καὶ 
ry... ὑφέλωσι. καὶ dua fy=‘although.’ The apodosis of ἣν ὑφέλωσι 
is suppressed, or rather anticipated in ἐλπίδα εἶναι, which is to be 
repeated after καί in some different form, such as καλῶς ἕξειν. This 
is not a strictly grammatical explanation, but is the best way of 
analysing, πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, the course of thought in the mind of 
Thucydides. 

αὐτοῖς refers to the Athenians, σφίσι to the Peloponnesians ; 
ἐφορμοῦσιν αὐτοῖς appears to be the dative of the reason, ‘ by reason 
of their blockading,’ or (ἐφορμῶσιων ‘ attacking them.’ 

Or 2) the MS. reading ἐφορμῶσι is retained, and taken as the 
subjunctive after ἦν, and δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται is dependent upon ὅπως, 
δαπάνη being explained, not of expense, but of the means of meet- 
ing expense: ‘and that if they deprive Athens of this great source 
of revenue—even if’ (or, ‘ and also if’) ‘they, the Athenians, block- 
ade them, they, the Peloponnesians, may have the means of meet- 
ing the expense.’ But a) ὅπως is too far off, or rather separated by 

‘hordinate clauses, and 4) the meaning assigned to 


NOTES, BOOK 117. 175 


dercém is not justified by the context, as ini 83 init. καὶ ἔστιν ὁ 

wie pos οὐχ ὅπλων τὸ πλέον ἀλλὰ δαπάνης, δὲ ἣν τὰ ὅπλα ὠφελεῖ: 1. 99 

fra. καὶ τοῖς μὲν ᾿Αθηναίοις ηὔξετο τὸ ναυτικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς δαπάνης fy ἐκεῖνοι 

εκ αι. ξέροιεν : viii. 37 fin. ὁπόση 8 ἂν στρατιὰ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ βασιλέως ἧ, 

““““---.«“επεμψαμένου βασιλέως, τὴν δαπάνην βασιλέα παρέχει. And c) there 

Ἐξ πὶ Ee further objection that σφίσιν and αὐτοῖς are referred to the 

Θ᾿ Ξαι τ ας persons. This might be avoided if we suppose the Pelo- 

ὦ» <>» -=e=nesians to blockade the Athenians. But such a revolution in 
ἔα <== situation at this period of the war is quite inconceivable. 


“SE 3) δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται may still be dependent on ὅπως, but 
ti «-------- word δαπάνη taken in its usual sense, the Athenians being the 
ect of ἐφορμῶσι, and σφίσι referring to them and αὐτοῖς to the 

“<= + ““loponnesians: ‘and that, if they deprive the Athenians of this 
= “==—=at source of revenue, and at the same time if they,’ the Athe- 
ἘΝ ——=—=amns, ‘ blockade the Peloponnesians, they,’ the Athenians, ‘ may 
— “===mselves incur expense.’ This explanation is supported by the 
« -- mparison of iii. 33 fin., where Paches the Athenian commander 

=. ngratulates himself on having escaped the necessity of blockading 

~~ Peloponnesian fleet. But a) σφίσι cannot refer to the Athe- 

πὰ πὶ ans, although they are the subject of ἐφορμῶσι: for the whole 

“Ξε δαπάνη σφίσι γίγνηται is connected by ὅπως with the prin- 

— = pal subject. And δ) there is an awkward change of subject in 

τες clauses ἣν ὑφέλωσι and ἣν ἐφορμῶσι, which, according to this 
***xterpretation, are parallel in sense. 

The last two explanations are greatly assisted by leaving out 

=m, fw before ὑφέλωσι, which is then dependent on ὅπως and 

el to ἀποστήσωσιν. But there is still a flaw in the word ὑφέλωσι, 

~““vhich is too weak to express the purpose indicated by ὅπως. Two 

i mportant MSS. (It. Vat.), and a third of less authority, Reg., read 

Specs. 

Or 4) the apodosis to the whole sentence is found in the last 
clause, πείσειν τε οἴεσθαι καὶ Πισσούθνην ὥστε ξυμπολεμεῖν. But this 
explanation, besides being somewhat wanting in point (for the 
adherence of Pissuthnes was not the main object of the Lacedae- 
monians but only a means to it) gives no sense to the particle τέ. 
Yet it may be argued, on the other hand, that, as fifteen years after- 
wards, the money of Persia seemed essential to carrying on the 


al. 1 


1.1. 


22. 1. 


32. 2. 


34, I. 


36. 2. 


176 THUCYDIDES. 


war with success; and that the τέ may be explained by an obscure 
connection with the words ὅπως ἀποστήσωσι τὴν Ἰωνίαν (cp. note on 
i. 9. 3. p. 13), ‘that they might induce Ionia to revolt; and if they 
deprived the Athenians of this great source of revenue, etc., they 
thought that they might also induce Pissuthnes to join them.’ 

On the whole 1), which is adopted in the English text, seems 
the best of these and some other alternatives. 


τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους, ols κατὰ πλοῦν εἰλήφει, ἀπέσφαξε τοὺς πολλούς. 


For similar cruelties cp. ii. 67 fin. 


ἀτειχίστου yap οὔσης τῆς ᾿Ιωνίας μέγα τὸ δέος ἐγένετο μὴ παραπλέοντες" 
οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι, εἰ καὶ ds μὴ διενοοῦντο μένειν, πορθῶσιν ἅμα προσπές-- 
τοντες τὰς πόλεις. 

καὶ ὥς, 1)* ‘even although they might plunder them.’ ds refers to 
πορθῶσιν which follows, not 2) to the unwalled state of Ionia (dre- 
χίστου yap οὔσης τῆς Ἰωνίας), which, though it would be an inducement 
to the Peloponnesians to plunder, would not be an inducement to 
remain. Or 3) καὶ ὥς is simply equivalent to ‘in any case,’ as in 
i. 44 med. ἐδόκεε γὰρ ὁ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους πόλεμος καὶ ὡς ἔσεσθαι 
αὐτοῖς : viii. 51 med. καὶ of μὲν τὸν τειχισμόν τε παρεσκενάζοντο, καὶ ἐκ 


“- QA , ~ 
τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ ὥς μέλλουσα Σάμος θᾶσσον ἐτειχίσθη. 


παραπλέων δὲ πάλιν ἔσχε καὶ ἐς Νότιον τὸ Κολοφωνίων, οὗ κατῴκηντο 
Κολοφώνιοι τῆς ἄνω πόλεως ἑαλωκυίας ὑπὸ ᾿Ιταμάνους καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων 
κατὰ στάσιν ἰδίαν ἐπαχθέντων. 

There is no reason for altering ἰδίαν to ἰδίᾳ, although the expres- 
sion στάσις ἰδία is obscure. It probably refers to some local or 
family quarrel, as distinct either from a more general movement 
on the part of the government of the town, or from the great strife 
between oligarchy and democracy. 


καὶ προσξυνεβάλετο οὐκ ἐλάχιστον τῆς ὁρμῆς at Πελοποννησίων νῆες és 
᾿Ιωνίαν ἐκείνοις βοηθοὶ τολμήσασαι παρακινδυνεῦσαι. 

προσξυνεβάλετο, and not προσξυνελάβετο, προσξυνελάβοντο Or προσξυν- 
εβάλοντο (adopted by Poppo), which all alike rest on weaker MS. 
authority, is probably the true reading. The genitive τῆς ὁρμῆς is 


NOTES, BOOK 277. 177 


8overned or partly governed by οὐκ ἐλάχιστον, though it may also 36. 2. 
bea partitive genitive after προσξυνεβάλετο. Cp. Eur. Med. 284,— 
ξυμβάλλεται δὲ πολλὰ τοῦδε δείματος. 
“Thre greater part of this strong feeling was caused by the fact 
tha.t ,” or ‘it conduced greatly to this strong feeling that.’ There 
ig exo difficulty in the use of the singular προσξυνεβάλετο, for al 
SES τολμήσασαιΞ-τὸ τὰς ναῦς τολμῆσαι. 


oar τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ μετάνοιά τις εὐθὺς ἦν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναλογισμὸς ὠμὸν τὸ 836. 4. 
Bae we Pepa καὶ μέγα ἐγνῶσθαι πόλιν ὅλην διαφθεῖραι μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ τοὺς 
Ca a aos. 

<__—). ii. 62 med. μᾶλλον ἣ οὐ κήπιον καὶ ἐγκαλλώπισμα πλούτου͵ The 
ver «3» = ds μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ occur repeatedly, not only in Herodotus, but in 
1 i.<>>gysivs of Halicarnassus, the imitator of Thucydides. The 
© >= E> Tession is most easily explained as a confusion of ἢ οὐ with καὶ οὐ 

>= «Ξλλ' οὐ. In other words, the negation of the following clause im- 
¥ Lied in ἢ is repeated in a more definite form; generally (see ex- 
"221 ples in Jelf, 749. 3), where a negative has preceded ; here the 

Ἐλ ΕΞ gation is implied in ὠμόν. Cp. the French, ‘il n’écrit pas mieux 
Cette année-ci qu'il ne faisait l'année passée,’ and the Italian, 
" tao padre ha pit potenza sopra di me che non il tuo amico.’ 


«οὖ σκοποῦντες, ὅτι τυραννΐδα ἔχετε τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ mpds ἐπιβουλεύοντας 37. 2. 
trots καὶ ἄκοντας ἀρχομένους, ot οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἂν χαρίζησθε βλαπτόμενοι αὐτοὶ 
FP Sdayras ὑμῶν κιτλ. 

«οἷ which is here supplied, is wanting in nearly all the MSS. It is 
SS dle also to supply καί before οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἂν χαρίζησθε, or to change 
ne. Amto οὐδέ, It is not however certain that any emendation is 
im “>= =szsary, either here or at iv. 10 init., where 6 has been similarly 

SS 2 ted by Poppo and other editors. The clause οὐκ ἐξ ὧν... ὑμῶν 


m™m 


iv — be regarded as an epexegesis of ἄκοντας... ἀρχομένους, aS In 


& Ὁ, μενόντων ἡμῶν ξύμμαχον γίγνεται may likewise be an epexegesis 

“We δυσέμβατον ἡμέτερον νομίζω. Cp. ii. 60 med. καὶ μὴ ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς 
δου 
ἄς φι Ζωὴ 


«εἰ ταῖς κατ᾽ οἶκον κακοπραγίαις ἐκπεπληγμένοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς σωτηρίας 


Ἐκ μέζω δὲ καὶ ὅστις ἔσται ὁ ἀντερῶν καὶ ἀξιώσων ἀποφαίνειν τὰς μὲν 88. 1. 
“YW OL. ἢ N 


98. I. 


28. 4. 


178 THUCYDIDES. 


Μυτιληναίων ἀδικίας ἡμῖν ὠφελίμους οὖσας, τὰς δ᾽ ἡμετέρας ξυμφορὰς 
τοῖς ξυμμάχοις βλάβας καθισταμένας. 

τὰς ἡμετέρας ξυμφοράς, although general in form, alludes to the 
sufferings of the Athenians about the time of the revolt. Cp. iii. 
3 init. of δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι (ἦσαν yap τεταλαιπωρημένοι ὑπό τε τῆς νόσου Kal τοῦ 
πολέμου ἄρτι καθισταμένου καὶ ἀκμάζοντος) μέγα μὲν ἔργον ἡγοῦντο εἶναι 
Λέσβον προσπολεμώσασθαι κιτιλ, ἀδικίας is opposed to ξυμῴφοράς as 
ὠφελίμους ἴο βλάβας. 

The meaning is, ‘Who will pretend to say that the crimes of the 
Mitylenaeans are for our good, or that there is such a community 
of interest between us and our allies that war and pestilence 
cannot injure us without injuring them? There would then be 
an excuse for their revolt, which there is not.’ The insertion of 
ov before τοῖς ξυμμάχοις, adopted by Poppo, gives a meaning not 
only obscure but pointless. 


αἴτιοι δ᾽ ὑμεῖς κακῶς ἀγωνοθετοῦντες, οἵτινες εἰώθατε θεαταὶ μὲν τῶν λόγων 
γίγνεσθαι, ἀκροαταὶ δὲ τῶν ἔργων, τὰ μὲν μέλλοντα ἔργα ἀπὸ τῶν εὖ εἰπόντων 
σκοποῦντες ὡς δυνατὰ γίγνεσθαι, τὰ δὲ πεπραγμένα ἤδη οὐ τὸ δρασθὲν 
πιστότερον ὄψει λαβόντες ἢ τὸ ἀκουσθὲν ἀπὸ τῶν λόγῳ καλῶς ἐπιτιμη- 
σάντων. 

Either 1) τὰ πεπραγμένα is governed by σκοποῦντες repeated from 
the previous clause, and ἀπὸ τῶν λόγῳ καλῶς ἐπιτιμησάντων answers to 
ἀπὸ τῶν εὖ εἰπόντων, in which case οὐ τὸ δρασθὲν... ..τὸ ἀκουσθέν forms 
a parenthesis; or better 2)* it isan accusativus pendens resumed in 
δρασθέν : the clause ἀπὸ ray «.r.A. being governed either by ἀκουσθέν 
or AaBdvres. The words πιστότερον λαβόντες are to be taken closely 
together, and ὄψει qualifies both of them,=‘ not taking the fact as 
more certain because you have seen it,’ or ‘not accepting the ocular 
demonstration of fact.’ For this use of λαβόντες cp. note on iil. 
59. 1. 

Cp. for the thought Aristoph. Knights, 1111, a passage in which 
the chorus of Knights administers a similar rebuke to the djp0s,— 

ὦ Δῆμε, καλήν γ᾽ ἔχεις 
ἀρχήν, ὅτε πάντες ἄν- 
θρωποι δεδίασΐ σ᾽ ὧσ- 


περ ἄνδρα τύραννον. 


NOTES, BOOK 777. . .179 


ἀλλ᾽ εὐπαράγωγος εἶ, 88. 4. 
θωπενόμενός τε χαί- 
ρεις κἀξαπατώμενος, 
πρὸς τόν τε λέγοντ᾽ ἀεὶ 
κέχηνας᾽ ὁ νοῦς δέ σον 

παρὼν ἀποδημεῖ. 
Cp., for line 1114, iii. 37 init. οὐ σκοποῦντες ὅτι τυραννίδα ἔχετε τὴν 
ἀρχήν. | 

καὶ μετὰ καινότητος μὲν λόγου ἀπατᾶσθαι ἄριστοι, μετὰ δεδοκιμασμένου 38. 5. 
δὲ μὴ ξυνέπεσθαι ἐθελεῖν᾽ δοῦλοι ὄντες τῶν ἀεὶ ἀτόπων, ὑπερόπται δὲ τῶν 
εἰωθότων" καὶ μάλιστα μὲν αὐτὸς εἰπεῖν ἕκαστος βουλόμενος δύνασθαι, εἰ 6. 
δὲ μή, ἄνταγωνιζόμενοι τοῖς τοιαῦτα λέγουσι μὴ ὕστεροι ἀκολουθῆσαι 
δοκεῖν τῇ γνώμῃ, ὀξέως δέ τι λέγοντος προεπαινέσαι, καὶ προαισθέσθαι τε 
πρόθυμοι εἶναι τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ προνοῆσαι βραδεῖς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποβη- 
σόμενα. 

τοῖς τοιαῦτα λέγουσι. τοιαῦτα is to be explained 1) from the general 
sense of the preceding sentence, μετὰ καινότητος.... τῶν εἰωθότων. Or 
2)" from μάλιστα αὐτὸς εἰπεῖν ἕκαστος βουλόμενος δύνασθαι. ‘The mean- 
ing may then be a) ‘ who thus speak,’ i.e. ‘who are good orators, 
as the others would be if they could.’ Or rather perhaps 4) the 
speakers who get in their word, ‘who use this liberty of speaking 
after their fancy,’ are contrasted with the hearers who want to do. 
so, but can only anticipate them by signs of assent and dissent. 

δοκεῖν and πρόθυμοι εἶναι depend on ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι (compare iii. 
38 init. τῷ λέγειν πιστεύσας τὸ πάνυ δοκοῦν ἀνταποφῆναι ὡς οὐκ ἔγνωσται 
ἀγωνίσαιτ᾽ ἄν), or perhaps on βουλόμενοι understood from βουλόμενος, 
ἀκολουθῆσαι and προεπαινέσαι ON δοκεῖν, προαισθέσθαι ON πρόθυμοι εἶναι. 


τί ἄλλο οὗτοι ἣ ἐπεβούλευσάν τε καὶ ἐπανέστησαν μᾶλλον ἣ ἀπέστησαν 39. 2. 
(ἀπόστασις μέν ye τῶν βίαιόν τι πασχόντων ἐστών), ἐζήτησάν τε μετὰ τῶν 
πολεμιωτάτων ἡμᾶς στάντες διαφθεῖραι : καίτοι δεινότερόν ἐστιν ἡ εἰ καθ᾽ 
αὑτοὺς δύναμιν κτώμενοι ἀντεπολέμησαν. 

‘They have not broken off from us, but have risen and turned 
upon us.’ By this forced opposition Cleon means to say, ‘I will 
not use the common term ἀπόστασις, for that often implies pre- 
vious oppression: it was simply a brutal insurrection against us,’ * 
ἐπανάστασις. : 


N 2 


180 THUCYDIDES. 


39. 2. καίτοι is not adversative, but reflective or pathetic, and introduces 
a conclusion with an appeal to the reason or feelings of the audi- 
ence. ‘ But surely to conspire with our enemies was a far worse 
crime than to make war against us on their own account.’ Cp. 
notes on ii. 39. 4, 64. 4. 


40. I. οὔκουν δεῖ προθεῖναι ἐλπίδα οὔτε λόγῳ πιστὴν οὔτε χρήμασιν ὠνητήν, 
ὡς ξυγγνώμην ἁμαρτεῖν ἀνθρωπίνως λήψονται. 

The two datives may be taken either in the same or in different 
constructions, 1)* λόγῳ morqv==‘ assured by words;’ 2) morés= 
πίσυνος : cp. Plato, Laws, vii. 824 B, νυκτερευτὴν δὲ ἄρκυσι καὶ πλεκταῖς 
πιστὸν μηδεὶς μηδέποτε ἐάσῃ μηδαμοῦ θηρεῦσαι. 

χρήμασιν ὠνητήν applies, not to the hope, but to the realisation of 
the hope. There is a confusion of object and subject. 


40. 2. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν καὶ τότε πρῶτον καὶ νῦν διαμάχομαι μὴ μεταγνῶναι ὑμᾶς τὰ 
προδεδογμένα. 
The words τότε πρῶτον are not, strictly speaking, applicable to 
μὴ μεταγνῶναι ὑμᾶς τὰ προυδεδογμένα. For the original resolution 
must have been passed before it could be repented οἵ. 


40. 6. μάλιστα δὲ of μὴ ξὺν προφάσει τινὰ κακῶς ποιοῦντες ἐπεξέρχονται, καὶ 
διόλλυνται, τὸν κίνδυνον ὑφορώμενοι τοῦ ὑπολειπομένον ἐχθροῦ. ὁ γὰρ 
μὴ ξὺν ἀνάγκῃ τί παθὼν χαλεπώτερος διαφυγὼν τοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἐχθροῦ. 

διόλλυνται can only be taken as a passive or neuter. It is 1)* an 
allusion, inserted somewhat out of place, to the fate of the Mity- 
lenaeans. 

Or 2) ἐπεξέρχονται καὶ διόλλυνται May mean ‘go on in a desperate 
course of revenge.’ Compare Soph. ΕἸ. 140,— 

ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν μετρίων ἐπ᾿ ἀμήχανον 
ἄλγος ἀεὶ στενάχουσα διόλλυσαι. 

Or 3) καὶ διόλλυνται may perhaps be a gloss. 

Or 4) we may adopt the ingenious emendation of Stahl, καὶ 
διολλύναι, ‘they pursue their vengeance even to their enemy’s 
destruction.’ 

According to the alternative rendering of the last sentence, 6 
γὰρ μή κιτὰλ,, given in the English text, the supposition that the 


NOTES, BOOK Il, 181 


Mitylenaeans might have conquered, (κρατήσαντας ὑμῶν above,) is 40. 6. 
now dropped; ydp refers to the general context, not to the words 
immediately preceding ; and the clause which follows, μὴ ξὺν ἀνάγκῃ 
- -- ἐχθροῦ is applicable, not to the Athenians, but to the Mity- 
Henaeans, giving an additional reason why they should be punished. 


A great part of Diodotus’ speech is a verbal answer to Cleon, 
“whom he pursues throughout. Cp. 42. 2 with 38. 4, 40. 2; 42. 3 
“with 38. 2; 43. 4 with 37. 5; 44. 1, 2 with 40.1; 44. 3 with 40. 
58; 46. 1 with 40.8; 46. 3 with 39. 8; 47. 3, 4 with 39.6; 47.5 
“with 40. 4; 48. 1 with 40. 2, 3. 


χαλεπώτατοι δὲ καὶ of ἐπὶ χρήμασι προσκατηγοροῦντες ἐπίδειξίν τινα. 42, 3. 
‘But there is another class («ai) who bring a further charge 
(xpoo-), that of making a display of eloquence for a bribe, and 
they are the most difficult to meet.’ καί arises out of a confusion 
of χαλεποὶ καὶ οἱ προσκατηγοροῦντες and χαλεπώτατοι δὲ οἱ προσ- 


κατηγοροῦντες. 


χρὴ δὲ τὸν μὲν ἀγαθὸν πολίτην μὴ ἐκφοβοῦντα τοὺς ἀντεροῦντας ἀλλ ἃ τὸ 43. 5. 
τοῦ ἴσου φαίνεσθαι ἄμεινον λέγοντα, τὴν δὲ σώφρονα πόλιν τῷ τε πλεῖστα 
εὖ βουλεύοντι μὴ προστιθέναι τιμήν, ἀλλὰ μηδ᾽ ἐλασσοῦν τῆς ὑπαρχούσης, 
καὶ τὸν μὴ τυχόντα γνώμης οὐχ ὅπως (ζημιοῦν ἀλλὰ μηδ᾽ ἀτιμάζειν. 
ἐκφοβοῦντα is parallel to ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου, ‘not by intimidation, but 
by fair play.’ The first ἀλλὰ μηδέτεε΄ but not either,’ ‘but again not :’ 
the second=‘ but not even.’ 


οὕτω γὰρ 6 τε κατορθῶν ἥκιστα ἂν ἐπὶ τῷ ἔτι μειζόνων ἀξιοῦσθαι παρὰ 42. 6. 
γνώμην τι καὶ πρὸς χάριν λέγοι, ὅ τε μὴ ἐπιτυχὼν ὀρέγοιτο τῷ αὐτῴ, χαρι- 
ζόμενός τι καὶ αὐτός, προσάγεσθαι τὸ πλῆθος. 

χαριζόμενος κιτιλ. is epexegetic of τῷ αὐτῷ, ‘by the same means,’ 
that is to say, ‘ by imitating his rival’s complaisancy.’ 


ὧν ἡμεῖς τἀναντία δρῶμεν, καὶ προσέτι, ἢν ris καὶ ὑποπτεύηται κέρδους 43. 1. 
μὲν ἕνεκα, τὰ βέλτιστα δὲ ὅμως λέγειν, φθονήσαντες τῆς οὐ βεβαίου δοκήσεως 
τῶν κερδῶν τὴν φανερὰν ὠφελίαν τῆς πόλεως ἀφαιρούμεθα. 

Strictly speaking the word ὑποπτεύηται only applies to κέρδους ἕνεκα, 
some more general notion obtained from it has to be supplied with 


48, 3. 


43. 5. 


44. 2. 


182 THUCYDIDES. 


. τὰ βέλτιστα λέγειν. καί is to be taken, not with ὑποπτεύηται, but with 


this more general notion, ἦν res καὶ νομίζηται x.r.A. ‘If ἃ man is sus- 
pected of receiving money, even although (ἣν «ai) he be thought 
nevertheless (ὅμως, i.e. notwithstanding his receiving bribes) to say 
what is best,’ etc. 


μόνην τε πόλιν διὰ τὰς περινοίας εὖ ποιῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ προφανοῦς μὴ ἐξαπα- 
τήσαντα ἀδύνατον. 

The absence of the article has caused a difficulty, but μόνην πόλιν 
is really the predicate. ‘Athens is the only city which,’ ete. The 
words have been taken to mean, ‘It is impossible to do good with- 
out deception to a city (though it may be possible in the case of 
individuals,’) But Diodotus cannot mean to say this of every state ; 
nor is there any reason why a state should be more subject than an 
individual to these suspicions, nor any hint in the context that such 
a contrast is intended. 


viv δὲ πρὸς ὀργὴν ἦντινα τύχητε ἔστιν dre σφαλέντες τὴν τοῦ πείσαντοε 
μίαν γνώμην ζημιοῦτε, καὶ οὐ τὰς ὑμετέρας αὐτῶν, εἰ πολλαὶ οὖσαι ξυν- 
εξήμαρτον. 

The construction is νῦν δὲ πρὸς ὀργήν, πρὸς ἥντινα τύχητε ζημιοῦντες, 
ζηγμιοῦτε. For a) if we join πρὸς ὀργήν, not with ζημιοῦτε, but with oda- 
Aevres, there is a want of point in the words. The meaning is not 
‘according to any passion which led you into disaster, but ‘accord- 
ing to any passion under the influence of which you punish.’ 
In other words, ‘ You punish, when you have met with a disaster, 
which will sometimes occur, according to the temper of the 
moment.’ And 4) ζημιοῦντες πρὸς ὀργὴν is a more natural expression 
than σφαλέντες πρὸς ὀργήν. 


ἣν τε γὰρ ἀποφήνω πάνυ ἀδικοῦντας αὐτούς, οὐ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀποκτεῖναι 
κελεύσω, εἰ μὴ ξυμφέρον" ἦν τε καὶ ἔχοντές τι ξυγγνώμης εἶεν, εἰ τῇ πόλει 
μὴ ἀγαθὸν φαίνοιτο. 

ἤν τε καὶ... εἶεν. 1)* ἤν is used as in the previous clause ; but as 
the alternative of the Mitylenaeans having an excuse is rhetorically 
represented to be the less probable of the two—(‘and even if, 
which I take to be a remote possibility ’—) the optative is substi- 
tuted for the subjunctive—in other words there is a confusion of 


NOTES, BOOK 2717. 183 


ἣν dow and εἰ εἶν. No other instance is found in classical Greek 44. 2. 
of the use of ἤν with the optative, although the converse incon- 
gruity occurs in the use of εἰ with ‘the subjunctive (εἰ ξυστῶσιν αἱ 
πόλεις φοβηθεῖσαι, Vi. 21 init.). 

Or 2) we may suppose a corruption of the text; εἶεν may be a 
reduplication of the εἰ following ; the various reading εἰ ἐν τῇ πόλει 
flor εἰ τῇ πόλει is found in several MSS. If eiey be left out, ὦσι 
may be supplied. One good MS., the Clarendonianus, reads 
ἔχοντας, which would follow ἀποφήνω. 

The aposiopesis is natural where the speaker wants to suggest 
without expressing the opposite and less pleasing alternative; ‘I 
will not say that they are to be acquitted,’ od διὰ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ ἀπο- 
κτεῖναι κελεύσω. Cp., although not precisely parallel, iii. 3 med. καὶ 
ἣν μὲν ξυμβῇ ἡ πεῖρα---εἰ δὲ μή, Μντιληναίοις εἰπεῖν κιτιλ. : Plato, Rep. 
ix. 575 D, ἐὰν μὲν ἑκόντες ὑπείκωσιν----(5.}}. καλῶς ἔχει) ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιτρέπῃ 
ἡ πόλις... τὴν πατρίδα... κολάσεται, and Prot. 325 Ὁ. 

Or 3) ἃ comma is placed after ξυγγνώμης and εἶεν taken in the 
ordinary sense, ‘Be it so,’ ‘let mercy have no place.’ A way of 
explaining the words equally repugnant to the position and to the 
meaning of elev. Is there any example of an interjection in the 
middle of a sentence in Thucydides? 


ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐ δικαζόμεθα πρὸς αὐτούς, Gore τῶν δικαίων δεῖν, ἀλλὰ βουλευ- 44. 4. 
μεθα rept αὐτῶν, ὅπως χρησίμως ἕξουσιν. 
Cp., for the general meaning, Burke, Speech on Conciliation 
with America: ‘At this proposition I must pause for a moment. 
The thing seems a great deal too big for my ideas of jurisprudence. 
. -- It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic, to apply the ordinary 
ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not 
know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole 
people.’ 
πεφύκασί τε ἅπαντες καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ ἁμαρτάνειν. 46. 3. 
τέ -is here expressive and emphatic, ‘Moreover all sin by 
nature, etc.’ 


καὶ εἰκὸς τὸ πάλαι τῶν μεγίστων ἀδικημάτων μαλακωτέρας κεῖσθαι αὐτάς͵ 45. 3. 
παραβαινομένων δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ ἐς τὸν θάνατον αἱ πολλαὶ ἀνήκουσι" καὶ τοῦτο 


ὅμως παραβαίνεται. 


AB. 3. 


AB. 4. 


45. 6. 


184 THUCYDIDES. 


τοῦτο refers to θάνατος, but παραβαίνεται is said inaccurately, not of 
death, but of the law which is sanctioned by the penalty of death. 
So παραβαινομένων really refers to the idea of a law contained in 
ζημιῶν just above. 


ἣ τοίνυν δεινότερόν τι τούτου δέος εὑρετέον ἐστίν, ἣ τόδε ye οὐδὲν ἐπίσχει" 
ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν πενία ἀνάγκῃ τὴν τόλμαν παρέχουσα, ἡ δ᾽ ἐξουσία ὕβρει τὴν 
πλεονεξίαν καὶ φρονήματι, αἱ δ᾽ ἄλλαι ξυντυχίαι ὄργῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὡς 
ἑκάστη τις κατέχεται ὑπ᾽ ἀνηκέστου τινὸς κρείσσονος, ἐξάγουσιν ἐς τοὺς 
κινδύνους. 

τούτου and τόδε refer to the same antecedent, the fear of death. 
The change is only made to avoid tautology. Cp. for a similar 
variation of the pronoun vi. 61 fin. of δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐρήμῃ δίκῃ θάνατον 
κατέγνωσαν αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τῶν μετ᾽ ἐκείνου : Soph. Ant. 296,— 

τοῦτο καὶ πόλεις 
πορθεῖ, τόδ᾽ ἄνδρας ἐξανίστησιν δόμων. 

ἀνάγκῃ and ὕβρει καὶ φρονήματι are most naturally explained as 
datives after παρέχουσα. In the third clause 1)* the. construction 
changes, ὀργῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, the dative of the instrument after 
ἐξάγουσιν, the principal verb, taking the place of the participial 
clause ἀνάγκῃ τὴν τόλμαν παρέχουσα x.r.A. Observe that in sense ὀργῇ 
corresponds to the accusatives τόλμαν, πλεονεξίαν, and the clause ὡς 
ἑκάστη tis... κρείττονος to the datives ἀνάγκῃ, ὕβρει, φρονήματι. For 
τόλμα and πλεονεξία are passions; ἀνάγκη, ὕβρις, and φρόνημα are the 
fatal powers which overmaster the several ξυντυχίαι, or conditions of 
life. Or 2) the same construction may be retained, ὀργῇ being the 
dative after παρέχουσα, and some general idea being supplied from 
τόλμαν and πλεονεξίαν, ‘the several occasions of human life furnishing 
a similar incitement to human passion.’ With ὑπ᾽ ἀνηκέστου τινὸς 
κρείσσονος we May then repeat ὀργῆς. The parallelism of the sense 
is thus less precise, but the parallelism of the grammar more 
complete. 

Thucydides here revels in personification which almost passes 
into allegory. 

ἐξάγουσιν, ‘lead them astray,’ or ‘out of the way.’ és τοὺς κινδύνους, 
into the dangers which await them. 


ld ”~ 4 
καὶ ἡ τύχη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν ἔλασσον ξυμβάλλεται ἐς τὸ ἐπαίρειν' ἀδοκήτως 


NOTES, BOOK III. 185 


yap ἔστιν ὅτε παρισταμένη καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑποδεεστέρων κινδυνεύειν τινα προάγει, 45, 6. 
καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον τὰς πόλεις ὅσῳ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων, ἐλευθερίας ἢ ἄλλων 
ἀρχῆς, καὶ μετὰ πάντων ἕκαστος ἀλογίστως ἐπὶ πλέον τι αὐτῶν ἐδόξασεν. 

There is far more MS. authority for αὐτῶν than for αὑτόν. τι αὐτῶν, 
‘some of these seductive aims,’ ra μέγιστα, ἐλευθερία, and ἀρχή. 

For the expression τι αὐτῶν cp. i. 83 fin. οἴπερ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀποβαι- 
νόντων τὸ πλέον ex ἀμφότερα τῆς αἰτίας ἔξομεν, οὗτοι καὶ καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν τι 
αὐτῶν προΐδωμεν. Cp. also v. 26 fin,, vi. 92 init. 


ἡμῖν Te πῶς οὐ βλάβη δαπανᾶν καθημένοις διὰ τὸ ἀξύμβατον, καὶ ἣν 46, 3. 
ἕλωμεν πόλιν, ἐφθαρμένην παραλαβεῖν, καὶ τῆς προσόδου τὸ λοιπὸν an’ αὐτῆς 
στέρεσθαι ; 

Cp. Burke, Speech on Conciliation with America: ‘A further 
objection to force is, that you tmpatr the object by your very en- 
deavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing 
which you recover ; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed 
in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. 

I do not choose to consume its strength along with our own; 
because in all parts it is the British strength that I consume.’ 


ὁρᾶν ὅπως és τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον μετρίως κολάζοντες ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔξομεν ἐς 46. 4. 
χρημάτων λόγον ἰσχυούσαις χρῆσθαι. 

‘In respect of money,’ or ‘if money be taken into consideration.’ 

οὗ νῦν τἀναντία δρῶντες, ἤν τινα ἐλεύθερον καὶ Big ἀρχόμενον εἰκότως 46, 5. 
πρὸς αὐτονομίαν ἀποστάντα χειρωσώμεθα, χαλεπῶς οἰόμεθα χρῆναι τιμωρεῖ- 
σθαι χρὴ δὲ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους οὐκ ἀφισταμένους σφόδρα κολάζειν κιτὰλ. 

ἐλεύθερος here signifies something less than αὐτόνομος, and refers 
either to all the allies of Athens or only to those who, like the 
Lesbians, furnished ships but did not pay tribute. Cp. note on 
i. 19 in the English text. In iii. 39 init. however Cleon, who is 
exaggerating the case against the Mitylenaeans, calls them αὐτόνομοι. 
Both words are used by Thucydides to distinguish the independent 
from the tributary allies of Athens. Cp. iii. 10 fin. ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτό- 
youos δὴ ὄντες καὶ ἐλεύθεροι τῷ ὀνόματι: Vi. 85 med. (where ἐλευθέρως is 
the stronger term,) καὶ γὰρ τοὺς ἐκεῖ ξυμμάχους ὡς ἕκαστοι χρήσιμοι 
ἐξηγούμεθα, Χίους μὲν καὶ Μηθυμναίους νεῶν παροχῇ αὐτονόμους, τοὺς δὲ 


49. 1. 


49. 2. 


49. 4. 


186 THUCYDIDES. 


, πολλοὺς χρημάτων βιαιότερον φορᾷ, ἄλλους δὲ καὶ πάνυ ehevOépws ξυμ- 


μαχοῦντας, and vii. 57 init. of ἀπὸ ξυμμαχίας αὑτόνομοι. 


καὶ τοῦτο πολλῷ ξυμφορώτερον ἡγοῦμαι ἐς τὴν κάθεξιν τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἑκόντας 
ἡμᾶς ἀδικηθῆναι, ἣ δικαίως obs μὴ δεῖ διαφθεῖραι" καὶ τὸ Κλέωνος τὸ αὐτὸ 
δίκαιον καὶ ξύμφορον τῆς τιμωρίας οὐχ εὑρίσκεται ἐν αὐτῷ δυνατὸν ὃν ἅμα 
γίγνεσθαι. 

ἐν αὐτῷ, ‘in the course advised by Cleon,’ referring either 1) to ἡ 
τιμωρία, or 2) to δικαίως obs μὴ δεῖ διαφθεῖραι. For the neuter in 1) cp. 
vi. 82 fin. δούλειαν δὲ αὐτοί re ἐβούλοντο καὶ ἡμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπενεγκεῖν: V. 27 
init., and iii. 45. 3 quoted above, καὶ τοῦτο ὅμως παραβαίνεται. 


ῥηθεισῶν δὲ τῶν γνωμῶν τούτων μάλιστα ἀντιπάλων πρὸς ἀλλήλας, of 
᾿Αθηναῖοι ἦλθον μὲν ἐς ἀγῶνα ὅμως τῆς δόξης καὶ ἐγένοντο ἐν τῇ χειροτονίᾳ 
ἀγχώμαλοι, ἐκράτησε δὲ ἡ τοῦ Διοδότου. 

ὅμως, ‘in spite of the change of feeling,’ or reaction, already de- 
scribed, iii. 36 ; and also in spite of Diodotus’ speech, the decree 
was not repealed without strong opposition (ἀγχώμαλοι). There is 
veiled in the words γνωμῶν and ἀγών a new form of the old oppo- 
sition between λόγος and ἔργον, ‘after so much‘had been said on 
both sides they proceeded to try the issue.’ 


καὶ τριήρη εὐθὺς ἄλλην ἀπέστελλον κατὰ σπουδήν, ὅπως μή, φθασάσης τῆς 
δευτέρας, εὕρωσι διεφθαρμένην τὴν πόλιν᾽ προεῖχε δὲ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ νυκτὶ 
μάλιστα. 

Either 1) the words ὅπως μὴ εὕρωσι διεφθαρμένην --- ὅπως σώσωσι, 
the nominative to προεῖχε, the first trireme, being implied in φθασάσης. 
But this order of the wordsis harsh. Or 2) through a confusion, or 
to avoid awkwardness, a second μή may have been omitted. The 
text might have run ὅπως μή, μὴ φθασάσης x.r.A. Compare a similar 
omission of οὐ, where it is necessary to the sense, in vii. 75 med. 
οὐκ ἄνευ [οὐκ] ὀλίγων ἐπιθειασμῶν. The other readings, ἑτέρας, προτέρας, 
are clearly corrections. δευτέρας cannot possibly refer to the first 
trireme. 


παρὰ τοσοῦτον μὲν ἡ Μυτιλήνη ἦλθε κινδύνου. 


1) A confusion between παρὰ τοσοῦτον ἦλθεν ὀλέθρου and ἐς τοσοῦτον 


NOTES, BOOK ΜΆ 187 


ἦλθε κινδύνου. Or 2) rapa τοσοῦτον κινδύνουΞΞ ἐς τοσοῦτον κινδύνου, an 49. 4. 
extension of the local use of παρά. Or 3) κίνδυνος may bear a 
stronger sense, approaching to that of ὄλεθρος. Compare note on 

i. 20. 2. Or 4) κινδύνου may be a genitive of respect, and not par- 

titive or local. 


τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους ἄνδρας obs ὁ Πάχης ἀπέπεμψεν x.7.X. δΟ. 1. 
The disappearance of Paches from the scene is sufficiently 
explained by the fact of which Plutarch (Nicias, vi.) has pre- 
served a record, viz. that he drew his sword and killed himself 
when brought before the dicastery to give an account of his conduct 
as general, a statement which is confirmed by the epigram of 
Agathias (a.p. 570) narrating the prosecution instituted against 
him by the two Mitylenaean women whom he had violated after 
killing their husbands. 


ἐβούλετο δὲ Νικίας τὴν φυλακὴν αὐτόθεν δι᾽ ἐλάσσονος τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις καὶ 5]. 2. 
μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ Βουδόρου καὶ τῆς Σαλαμῖνος εἶναι, τούς τε Πελοποννησίους, ὅπως 
μὴ ποιῶνται ἔκπλους αὐτόθεν λανθάνοντες τριήρων τε, οἷον καὶ τὸ πρὶν 
γενόμενον, καὶ λῃστῶν ἐκπομπαῖς, τοῖς τε Μεγαρεῦσιν ἅμα μηδὲν ἐσπλεῖν. 

1) The words τοὺς Πελοποννησίους and ὅπως μή are dependent on 
τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τὴν φυλακὴν εἶναι Which=rovs ᾿Αθηναίους φυλάσσειν. 

Or 2)* ὅπως μὴ ποιῶνται takes the place of μὴ ποιεῖσθαι, answering 
to μηδὲν ἐσπλεῖν below. The change gives emphasis and liveliness. 

τέ before Πελοποννησίους is connected with the following τέ in rots 
re Μεγαρεῦσιν, the clauses τούς re Πελοποννησίους and τοῖς re Μεγαρεῦσιν 
being subordinate, not parallel, to that which has preceded. 


ἑλὼν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς Νισαίας πρῶτον δύο πύργω προέχοντε μηχαναῖς ἐκ 51, 3. 
θαλάσσης καὶ τὸν ἔσπλουν ἐς τὸ μεταξὺ τῆς νήσου ἐλενθερώσας, ἀπετείχιζε 
καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου, 7 κατὰ γέφυραν διὰ τενάγους ἐπιβοήθεια ἦν τῇ νήσῳ 
οὐ πουλὺ διεχούσῃ τῆς ἠπείρου. ὡς δὲ τοῦτο ἐξειργάσαντο ἐν ἡμέραις ὀλίγαις, 
ὕστερον δὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεῖχος ἐγκαταλιπὼν καὶ φρουρὰν ἀνεχώρησε τῷ 

The island being now joined to the continent, it is impossible to 
identify the localities exactly. We are therefore dependent for our 
knowledge of the geography mainly on the words of Thucydides, 


δ1. 3. 


δῶ. 2. 


188 THUCYDIDES, 


from which we may gather that the island of Minoa was divided 
from the mainland by a channel, crossed at one point where it was 
shallow by a bridge, and defended at another by two towers pro- 
jecting into the sea, possibly one on either side of the channel. But 
their position is not precisely described unless προέχοντε be taken 
with ἀπὸ Νισαίας. 

For ἑλὼν μηχαναῖς cp. the Aristophanic burlesque, Birds, 363, where 
Peisthetaerus has entrenched himself behind the pot and kettle,— 

ὦ σοφώτατ᾽, εὖ γ᾽ dvevpes αὐτὸ καὶ στρατηγικῶτ" 
ὑπερακοντίζεις σύ γ᾽ ἤδη Νικίαν ταῖς μηχαναῖς. 

ἀπὸ τῆς Νισαίας, either 1)* ‘on the side of Nisaea,’ or 2) after 
mpoéxovre, ‘projecting from Nisaea,’ and therefore on the opposite 
coast. But the order of the words is unfavourable to 2). ἀπετείχιζε 
καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου, 1)* ‘he fortified the side of the island nearest 
to the mainland,’ the words being opposed to the previous clause, 
ἑλὼν οὖν... ἐλευθερώσας. Nicias turned his attention first to one 
side of the island and then to the other. 

Although Nisaea was itself on the mainland, τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου 
may very well be opposed to ἀπὸ τῆς Neoaias. For the island is 
likely to have approached the mainland more nearly at the point 
where they were connected by a bridge over the marsh, or by a 
bridge and a way through the marsh, than at Nisaea. 

It is also possible 2) that the fortification may have been con- 
structed, not on the island, but on the mainland, which would have 
given the Athenians a greater command of the country on the other 
side of the channel. A better meaning is thus given to καί before 
ἐν τῇ νήσῳ, the fortification on the island being then opposed to the 
fortification on the mainland. Otherwise καί must go with the 
whole clause, ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεῖχος ἐγκαταλιπών, as in the English text. 

From the present appearance of the coast it can only be gathered 
a) that Nisaea lay to the east of the island, where remains of ancient 
buildings are still found, 4) that a mole ran out from the island 
towards Nisaea. On this, one or both of the ‘two projecting 
towers ’ may have stood. 


προσπέμπει δὲ αὐτοῖς κήρυκα λέγοντα, εἰ βούλονται παραδοῦναι τὴν 
ee - ‘ ‘ - » ‘ ’ 4 
πόλιν ἑκόντες τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ δικασεαῖς ἐκείνοις χρήσασθαι, τούς τε 


ἀδίκους κολάζειν, παρὰ δίκην δὲ οὐδένα, 


NOTES, BOOK {Ὶ]. 189 


The construction adopted in the English text is that of Arnold, 52. 2. 
who supports it by iv. 37, ἐκήρυξάν re εἰ βούλοιντο τὰ ὅπλα παραδοῦναι 
καὶ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ᾿Αθηναίοις, Sore βουλεῦσαι ὅ τι ἂν ἐκείνοις Boxy. ‘He 
sent a herald to say, “ Are you willing?”’ i.e. to ask if they were 
willing. All the infinitives depend on βούλονται, and the subject of 
κολάζειν is understood from ἐκείνοις. Cp. also v. 115 med. ἐκήρυξαν 
δέ, εἴ τις βούλεται παρὰ σφῶν ᾿Αθηναίους ληΐζεσθαι. 


Τὴν μὲν παράδοσιν τῆς πόλεως, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, πιστεύσαντες ὑμῖν ἐποιη- 68. 1. 
σάμεθα, οὐ τοιάνδε δίκην οἰόμενοι ὑφέξειν, vopspwrépay δέ τινα ἔσεσθαι, καὶ 
ἐν δικασταῖς οὐκ ἐν ἄλλοις δεξάμενοι, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐσμέν, γενέσθαι ἢ ὑμῖν 
ἡγούμενοι τὸ ἴσον μάλιστ᾽ ἂν φέρεσθαι. 

ὥσπερ καὶ ἐσμέν has been sometimes erroneously connected with 
ἐν ἄλλοις. ‘We accepted you and not others for our judges, but 
we are in the hands of others ;’ or, as the Plataeans say below, ‘ we 
fear that we are sacrificed to the Thebans.’ But the Lacedaemo- 
nians are really the judges of the Plataeans, and this point of view 
is maintained throughout the speeches, both of the Plataeans and of 
the Thebans. To obtain the proper sense for ὥσπερ καὶ ἐσμέν, 
δεξάμενοι must be taken in close connection with ἡγούμενοι. Either 
1)* the words ἐν δικασταῖς ... ἢ ὑμῖν are subordinate to ἡγούμενοι... 
φέρεσθαι, ‘ thinking that we should best secure justice by accepting 
you as our judges, as indeed you are.’ (δεξάμενοιΞΞ ἐπειδὴ ἐδεξάμεθα.) 
Or 2) ἡγούμενοι is epexegetic of δεξάμενοι, ‘accepting you as our 
judges because we thought,’ etc. The Plataeans complain, not that 
they have not received the judges whom they desired, but that the 
judges whom they have received are partial. 


τεκμαιρόμενοι trpoxariyopias τε ἡμῶν ov προγεγενημένης 7} χρὴ ἀντειπεῖν, 68. 2. 
ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ λόγον ἡτησάμεθα, τό τε ἐπερώτημα βραχὺ ὅν, ᾧ τὰ μὲν ἀληθῆ 
ἀποκρίνασθαι ἐναντία γίγνεται, τὰ δὲ ψευδῆ ἔλεγχον ἔχει. 

Either 1) τὰ ἀληθῆ may be dependent on ἀποκρίνασθαι. ‘To answer 
this question truly is adverse to our interests,’ ἐναντία being used 
instead of ἐναντίον, by assimilation to ἀληθῆ. 

Or 2) ἀποκρίνασθαι may be taken as epexegetic of ἀληθῆ. ‘The 
truth, if we answer what is true, is opposed to our interests.’ 


καὶ δέδιμεν οὐχὶ μὴ προκαταγνόντες ἡμῶν τὰς ἀρετὰς ἥσσους εἶναι τῶν 53. 4. 


53. 4. 


55. 3. 


190 THUCYDIDES. 


ὑμετέρων ἔγκλημα αὐτὸ ποιῆτε, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἄλλοις χάριν φέροντες ἐπὶ διεγνω- 
σμένην κρίσιν καθιστώμεθα. 

τὰς ἀρετὰς ἥσσους εἶναι κτλ. Not as the words are taken by 
Gdllerand Arnold, ‘that our services to you are less than your own, 
for thus ὑμετέρων has no proper meaning, but simply ‘that our 
virtues are less than your own,’ cp. ili. 57 init. 

It is doubtful whether χάριν φέροντες refers to the Plataeans or to 
the Thebans; whether the words mean 1) ‘that we are being 
sacrificed to gratify others,’ or 2)* ‘that you, to confer a favour on 
others, are sacrificing us.’ 2)* is in accordance with the use of 
the expression which invariably has an active and not a neuter 
sense, but the construction is harsh, χάριν φέροντες, although 
so near the verb καθιστώμεθα, being a ‘nominativus pendens.” When 
the doubt lies between an unusual meaning of a word or phrase 
and a harsh construction, the latter is in Thucydides the more 
probable. It may be further remarked that χάριν φέροντες naturally 
refers to the same subject as προκαταγνόντες. 

Compare, for the thought, Isocr. Plataicus (xiv.) 67, ἐνθυμεῖσθε 
δ᾽ ὅτι Λακεδαιμονίων μεγίστην ἐποιεῖσθε κατηγυρίαν. ὅτι Θηβαίοις χαριζόμενοι, 


τοῖς τῶν “Ἑλλήνων προδόταις, ἡμᾶς τοὺς εὐεργέτας διέφθειραν. 


καὶ προδοῦναι αὐτοὺς οὐκέτι ἦν κιλόν, ἄλλως τε καὶ ods εὖ παθών τις καὶ 
αὐτὸς δεόμενος προσηγίγετο ξυμμάχους καὶ πολιτείας μετέλαβεν. 

καί before αὐτός 1) connects εὖ παθών with αὐτὸς δεόμενος, or 2)* 
answers to the καί following, and connects προσηγάγετο ξυμμάχους 
with πολιτείας μετέλαβεν. Either 1) ‘especially when, having ex- 
perienced good at their hands, and at our own request, we had 
been made their allies and shared in the privileges of their city,’ 
or 2)* especially when we had experienced good at their hands, 
and, at our own request, had not only been made their allies, but 
also shared in the privileges of their city ;’ πολιτείας μετέλαβεν 
answers to αὐτὸς δεόμενος, ‘have gone out of our way to ask for 
protection and in return have received the rights of citizenship.’ 
But according to 1) παθών, being closely connected with Seopevos, 
must refer to a time previous to that of the alliance (προσηγάγετο), 
whereas we never hear of any earlier benefit conferred by the 
Athenians upon the Plataeans. According to 2) παθών may be 


NOTES, BOOK 71. 191 


defended as the historic aor. (see note on iv. 112.1). The kindness 55. 3. 
shown by the Athenians will then be their ready reception of the 
Plataeans into their alliance. 

The speaker implies that the Plataeans already possess the rights 
of Athenian citizens: but if so they must have been admitted to 
them before the fall of Plataea, probably at the time of the original 
alliance, cp. iii. 63 init. ἐγένεσθε ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ τιμωρίᾳ, ὡς dare, 
᾿Αθηναίων ξύμμαχοι καὶ πολῖται. 

This earlier connection of Plataea with Athens was ignored, or 
at any rate is not mentioned, by Isocrates, whose Platacan oration 
contains many reminiscences of Thucydides. He speaks of rights 
of intermarriage and of Plataean citizens who were descended from | 
freeborn Athenian women (§ 54). But whether he is referring to 
the times before or after the fall of Plataea is uncertain. If the 
earlier connection existed, it probably extended no further than to 
such privileges as ἐπιγαμία and ἔγκτησις. It is remarkable, and 
strikingly illustrates the hold which the mere name of their native 
city had upon Hellenes, that the Plataeans, who had been made 
Athenian citizens, should within a few years have thought it worth 
while to reestablish their ruined home. 


Θηβαῖοι δὲ πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα ἡμᾶς ἠδίκησαν, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον αὐτοὶ 66. I. 
ξύνιστε δι᾿ ἅπερ καὶ τάδε πάσχομεν. 

δι᾿ ἅπερ need not be taken with τὸ τελευταῖον, which stands as an 
accusative absolute at the beginning of the sentence; ‘and as for 
their latest crime, 1) you yourselves are well aware what are the 
causes of our present misfortunes.’ Or 2) putting a comma after 
ξύνιστε, δὶ ἅπερ may be connected with 4 ἠδίκησαν ἡμᾶς supplied from 
the previous clause after ξύνιστε:. Poppo would read δι᾽ ὅπερ, but 
the plural ἅπερ answers better to the plural rade. 

καί before τάδε answers to καί before ἄλλα, ‘ besides our old 
wrongs, these fresh sufferings.’ 


εἰ yap τῷ αὐτίκα χρησιμῴ ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐκείνων πολεμίῳ τὸ δίκαιον 588. I. 
λήψεσθε «.7.). 

For λήψεσθε in the sense ‘to conceive of’ cp. note on 59. ἃ 
infra. 


δθ. τ. 


56. 5. 


56. 7. 


192 THUCYDIDES. 


The dative χρησιμῷ may be explained as the dative of measure, 
similar to that following εἰκάζειν, σταθμᾶσθαι, etc. ‘For if you are 
going to measure justice by the rule of your own expediency.’ The 
two dative cases connected by the same article and by τέ, καί, 
forcibly express the double aspect of the motives by which the 
Lacedaemonians were influenced. 


οἱ κὴ τὰ ξύμφορα πρὸς τὴν ἔφοδον αὑτοῖς ἀσφαλείᾳ πράσσοντες. 
For the other reading, τὰ ξύμφορα αὐτοῖς, cp. note on English text. 


καίτοι χρὴ ταὐτὰ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ὁμοίως φαίνεσθαι γιγνώσκοντας, καὶ τὸ 
ξυμφέρον μὴ ἄλλο τι νομίσαι ἣ τῶν ξυμμάχων τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ὅταν ἀεὶ βέβαιον 
τὴν χάριν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔχωσι, καὶ τὸ παραυτίκα που ἡμῖν ὠφέλιμον 
καθιστῆται. 

These words, though in form general, are really aimed at the 
Lacedaemonians. ‘You ought to show that you do not entertain 
different opinions of us at different times, when our conduct is the 
same. You should remember 1)* that true expediency is nothing 
but the manifestation of a lasting gratitude to good allies, com- 
bined with a proper regard to one’s own immediate interests, 
—with ἔχωσι supply from qaivec6a, ‘men in general ;’ 2) or τῶν 
ξυμμάχων οἱ ἀγαθοί being made the subject of ¢ywo.,—‘ that true 
expediency is only this, when, in our relations with good allies, 
they are sure of a return for their goodness, while (as a matter of 
course) our own immediate interests are sufficiently secured.’ 

The second clause, though parallel in form to the first, is in 
reality a limitation thrown in by the way, and the undue emphasis 
which it gains by parallelism is softened by the indefinite particle 
rov== ‘although at the same time there must be some regard paid 
to one’s immediate interests.’ There is no need to read ἔχουσι, 
which is feeble, and spoils the rhythm of the sentence. 

The MSS. vary between ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν. The sense of ἡμῖν is 
general: if we read ὑμῖν there is a return from the general to the 
particular; i.e..to the case of the Lacedaemonians. 

In the last clause ὠφέλιμον seems to be substituted for ξυμφέρον 
merely in order to avoid tautology. ‘ Your true interest is to com- 
bine gratitude to good allies with your own immediate interest.’ 


NOTES, BOOK III. 193 


ὁρᾶτε ὅπως μὴ οὐκ ἀποδέξωνται ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν τ πέρι, αὐτοὺς ἀμείνους δῆ. 1. 
, ἀπρεπές τι ἐπιγνῶναι. 
ἐπιγνῶναι. ἐπι- implies that the Lacedaemonians are going out of 
~ Watheir way to pass sentence on the Plataeans. Cp. i. 70 init. ra ὑπάρ- 
«οντά τε σάζειν, καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι μηδέν, καὶ ἔργω οὐδὲ τἀναγκαῖα ἐξικέσθαι. 
οἵτινες Μήδων τε κρατησάντων ἀπωλλύμεθα καὶ νῦν ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πρὶν 57. 3. 
φιλτάτοις Θηβαίων ἡσσώμεθα, καὶ δύο ἀγῶνας τοὺς μεγίστους ὑπέστημεν, 
τότε μὲν τὴν πόλιν εἰ μὴ παρέδομεν λιμῷ διαφθαρῆναι νῦν δὲ θανάτον 
‘Who after the Persians had the upper hand (i.e. after Ther- 
mopylae, when the Persians gained possession of Boeotia) were in 
a state of ruin,’ or ‘ were all but ruined.’ 
τότε μέν κτλ. These words refer, as Arnold rightly remarks, 
not to some ‘fancied danger of starvation’ in the Persian war, but 
to the recent siege. Cp. infra, 59 fin. εἱλόμεθα γὰρ ἂν λιμῷ τελευτῆσαι. 
rére=‘just now. Cp. note on viii. 62. 3. 


καίτοι ἀξιοῦμέν γε καὶ θεῶν ἕνεκα τῶν ξυμμαχικῶν ποτε γενομένων καὶ τῆς 68, 1. 
ἀρετῆς τῆς ἐς τοὺς “Ἕλληνας καμφθῆναι ὑμᾶς καὶ μεταγνῶναι, εἴ τι ὑπὸ 
Θηβαίων ἐπείσθητε, τήν τε δωρεὰν ἀνταπαιτῆσαι αὐτοὺς μὴ κτείνειν obs μὴ 
ὑμῖν πρέπει, σώφρονά τε ἀντὶ αἰσχρᾶς κομίσασθαι χάριν, καὶ μή, ἡδονὴν. 
δόντας ἄλλοις, κακίαν αὑτοὺς ἀντιλαβεῖν. 

ἀνταπαιτῆσαι. The Thebans request the Lacedaemonians to 
slay the Plataeans. The Lacedaemonians are supposed to make a 
counter request to the Thebans that they shall not be asked to slay 
the innocent. 

σώφρονά re ἀντὶ αἰσχρᾶς κομίσασθαι χάριν. It is not clear whether 
χάρις refers 1) to the gratitude which would be shown by the 
Plataeans in return for an honourable compliance with their wishes 
on the part of the Lacedaemonians, contrasted with the gratitude 
shown by the Thebans for a dishonourable compliance ; or 2)* to 
the honourable boon to be granted by the Thebans, contrasted 
with the dishonourable boon which the Lacedaemonians, if they 
slay the Plataeans, will grant to them, ‘to receive an honourable 
boon instead of (granting) a dishonourable one.’ According to 2)* 
the language is somewhat inaccurate, since κομίσασθαι does not 
apply to αἰσχρᾶς χάριτος. But the sense obtained is more forcible. 

VOL. Π. O 


194 THUCYDIDES. 


58.1. κομίσασθαι, avrAa8ely are parallel to ἀνταπαιτῆσαι, not to μὴ κτείνειν, 
and follow ἀξιοῦμεν. 


58. 4. ἐτιμῶμεν κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον δημοσίᾳ ἐσθήμασί re καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις νομίμοις. 
Either 1)* with offerings of garments, or 2) more probably with 
mourning garments, i.e. used in processions. These are not said 
to be offered like the fruits of the earth, and there is no evidence 
for the practice of offering garments to the dead. For the case of 
Periander (Herod. v. 92. 28, 29) is exceptional. It is true that 
the explanation ‘garments worn in processions’ goes beyond the 
natural meaning of the words in a prose author. Cp. however 
Aesch. Eum. 1028,— 
φοινικοβάπτοις ἐνδυτοῖς ἐσθήμασι 
τιμᾶτε. 
And Plutarch (Aristid. xxi), a good authority on Boeotian matters, 
preserves the fact that in his own time, on the sixteenth day of 
the month Maimacterion, the commemoration still continued, at 
which the chief magistrate of the Plataeans, wearing a purple 
garment and carrying a funeral urn, led the procession, sword in 
hand, through the city to the tombs of the fallen. 


59.1. φείσασθαι δὲ καὶ ἐπικλασθῆναι τῇ γνώμῃ οἴκτῳ σώφρονι λαβόντας, μὴ 
ὧν πεισόμεθα μόνον δεινότητα κατανοοῦντας, ἀλλ᾽ οἷοί τε ἂν ὄντες πάθοιμεν, 
καὶ ὡς ἀστάθμητον τὸ τῆς ξυμφορᾶς, ᾧτινί ποτ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἀναξίῳ ξυμπέσοι. 

οἴκτῳ σώφρονι, ‘by reasonable compassion ;’ reasonable, a) be- 
cause we are innocent, J) because all men are liable to the same. 
A favourite strain of reflection among the Greeks; cp. Soph. Aj. 
121,— 

ἐποικτείρω δέ νιν 
δύστηνον ἔμπας, καίπερ ὄντα δυσμενῆ, 
ὁθούνεκ᾽ dry σνγκατέζευκται κακῇ, 
οὐδὲν τὸ τούτου μᾶλλον ἣ τοὐμὸν σκοπῶν. 

1)* οἴκτῳ σώφρονι is the dative of the instrument after ἐπικλασθῆναι. 
The construction being weakened by the interposition of τῇ γνώμῃ 
is supported by λαβόντας, ‘ be softened by pity, taking pity,’ like 
ἄγγελλε 8 ὅρκῳ προστιθείς, ‘tell him with an oath, adding an oath,’ 
Soph. ΕἸ. 47. 

Or 2) λαβόντας may mean ‘taking,’ i.e. ‘regarding’ our case with 


NOTES, BOOK 11]. 195 


= eye. Cp. iii. 38 med. οὐ τὸ δρασθὲν πιστότερον ὄψει λαβόντες ἣ τὸ BO. 1. 
<> wacbéy: iii. 56 init. εἰ γὰρ τῷ αὐτίκα χρησίμῳ ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐκείνων 
-"--ςςΞῳἈ mpi τὸ δίκαιον λήψεσθε κιτλ.: Vi. 53 fin. πάντα ὑπόπτως ἐλάμβανε. 
ἜΣ _—. also iv. 17 med., vi. 27 fin., vi. 61 init. 

“Sins ἀστάθμητον κιτιλ. ‘How uncertain ‘it is on whom the hand of 
= & =Sfortune may fall, however (xai) undeserving he may be.’ 


ΝΞ μεῖς re, ὡς πρέπον ἡμῖν καὶ ὡς ἡ χρεία προάγει, αἰτούμεθα ὑμᾶς, θεοὺς BY. 2. 
We 5 ὁμοβωμίους καὶ κοινοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐπιβοώμενοι, πεῖσαι τάδε, προφε- 
PS pec ὅρκους οὖς of πατέρες ὑμῶν ὥμοσαν μὴ ἀμνημονεῖν, ἱκέται γιγνό- | 

ὑμῶν τῶν πατρῴων τάφων, καὶ ἐπικαλούμεθα τοὺς κεκμηκότας μὴ 
Ὕπει θαι ὑπὸ Θηβαίοις, μηδὲ τοῖς ἐχθίστοις φίλτατοι ὄντες παραδοθῆναι. 
προφερόμενοι... μὴ ἀμνημονεῖν May be taken either 1) with the 
®eceding, or 2) with the following words. 

1) ‘Calling upon the Gods whom the Hellenes worship at 
Common altars, we entreat you, at the same time appealing to the 
Oaths which your fathers swore, to be persuaded by us, that is not 
to forget those oaths :—we are suppliants at the sepulchres of your 
fathers,’ etc. μὴ ἀμνημονεῖν is governed by αἰτούμεθα, and is a further 
explanation of πεῖσαι τάδε. The anacoluthon is to be accounted 
for a) by the passion of the sentence, δ) by the intervention of a 
participial clause, which makes it easier for the writer to lose sight 
of the preceding finite verb. 

Or 2) the whole clause from προφερόμενοι down to παραδοθῆναι 
may be an explanation of τάδε, the asyndeton being accounted for 
by the explanatory nature of the words. (Cp. note on iii. 37. 2.) 

‘We entreat you to grant our request, and our request is 
this:—appealing to the oaths which your fathers swore, that 
they would not forget them’ (or, with a change of subject, ‘and 
beseeching you not to forget them) we become suppliants at 
your fathers’ tombs,’ etc. ἀμνημονεῖν may follow either ὥμοσαν or 


προφερόμενοι. 


πεῖσαι τάδε, lit. ‘that we may persuade you of these things.’ μὴ 

τῇ μέντοι αὐτῇ ἰδέᾳ ὕστερον ἰόντων ᾿Αθηναίων ἐπὶ τοὺς “Ἕλληνας, μόνους 62, 2. 
αὖ Βοιωτῶν ἀττικίσαι. καίτοι σκέψασθε, ἐν οἵῳ εἴδει ἑκάτεροι ἡμῶν τοῦτο 
ἔπραξαν, 


0 2 


62. 3. 


62. 4. 


63. 1. 


63. 1. 


63. 3. 


63. 4. 


196 THUCYDIDES. 


τῇ αὐτῇ ἰδέᾳ, ‘in the same manner,’ or ‘on the same principle ;” 
cp. vi. 76 med. τῇ δὲ αὐτῇ ἰδέᾳ ἐκεῖνά τε ἔσχον καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε νῦν 
πειρῶνται. 

ἐν οἵῳ εἴδει : εἶδος from the general sense ‘form’ may mean either 
‘state of things,’ as here and in viii. 90 init. of δὲ τῶν τετρακοσίων 
μάλιστα ἐναντίοι ὄντες τῷ τοιούτῳ εἴδει, or ‘mode of action,’ as in vi. 
77 fin. ὁρῶντες αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦτο τὸ εἶδος τρεπομένους, ὥστε τοὺς μὲν 
λόγοις ἡμῶν διϊστάναι κιτιλ., Vili. 56 init. 


ὅπερ δέ ἐστι νόμοις μὲν καὶ τῷ σωφρονεστάτῳ ἐναντιώτατον. 
‘That which is most opposed to the laws and to the idea of 
moderation,’ or ‘to the most perfect form of government.’ 


καὶ οὗτοι ἰδίας δυνάμεις ἔλπίσαντες ἔτι μᾶλλον σχήσειν κιτιλ. 

The absence of the article shows that ἰδίας is to be taken closely 
with σχήσειν, ‘that they would have a still stronger hold on power 
for themselves.’ 


ὡς δὲ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλόν re ἡδικήκατε τοὺς “Ἕλληνας καὶ ἀξιώτεροί ἐστε wdone 
ζημίας. 


Cp. note on ii. 40. 1. 


οὐκοῦν χρὴν τὰ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μόνον ὑμᾶς ἐπάγεσθαι αὐτούς, καὶ μὴ ξυνεπιέναι 
μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἄλλοις. 

Poppo reads ἐπάγεσθαι for ὑπάγεσθαι, against the authority of nearly 
every MS. The change however seems to be required by the sense, 
and is supported by ἐπηγάγεσθε infra. 


καὶ λέγετε ὡς αἰσχρὸν ἦν προδοῦναι τοὺς evepyéras’ πολὺ δέ γε αἴσχιον 
καὶ ἀδικώτερον τοὺς πάντας Ἕλληνας καταπροδοῦναι. 

The stronger word καταπροδοῦναι is reserved for the greater 
offence. 


ὑμεῖς μὲν yap ἀδικούμενοι αὐτούς, ὡς hare, ἐπηγάγεσθε, τοῖς δὲ ἀδικοῦσιν 
ἄλλους ξυνεργοὶ κατέστητε. καίτοι τὰς ὁμοίας χάριτας μὴ ἀντιδιδόναι 
αἰσχρὸν μᾶλλον ἣ τὰς μετὰ δικαιοσύνης μὲν ὀφειληθείσας, ἐς ἀδικίαν δὲ 
ἀποδιδομένας. 


NOTES, BOQK III. 197 


ὑμεῖς μὲν γάρ κιτ.λ. ‘You say that you summoned them to your aid 68. 4. 
when you were wronged, but you became the accomplices of the 
wrong doers.’ It is better to take τοῖς ἀδικοῦσι generally than in the 
sense of ‘them when they were doing wrong.’ For although the 
article followed by δέ is constantly used for the demonstrative (see 
note on iv. 33. 2), yet here an opposition would be introduced 
between αὐτούς and τοῖς δέ, which really refer to the same persons. 

ras ὁμοίας χάριτας, favours or obligations which are attended by 
no inequality, because they were honourably conferred and can be 
honourably returned. ‘It is dishonourable not to repay honourable 
obligations; but the reverse of dishonourable not to repay those 
which are justly due but cannot be honestly repaid.’ 

Cp. οὐκ ἴσην αὐτοῖς τὴν χάριν ἀνταπέδοτε supra, and also iii. 58 
Init. σώφρονά re ἀντὶ αἰσχρᾶς κομίσασθαι χάριν. It is true, as Poppo 
observes, that the χάρις here is different from the χάρις spoken of 
in c. 58 init. But the mention of χάρις in the speech of the 
Plataeans may have suggested to the mind of Thucydides the 
repetition of the thought in a different connection. 


δῆλόν re ἐποιήσατε οὐδὲ τότε τῶν ‘ENAnvov ἕνεκα μόνοι ov μηδίσαντες, 64, 1. 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὑμεῖς δὲ τοῖς μὲν ταὐτὰ βουλόμενοι ποιεῖν, τοῖς δὲ 
τἀναντία. 

With ὑμεῖς δὲ βουλόμενοι supply either 1)* δῆλον ἐποιήσατε ΟΥ̓ 2) δῆλον 
ἐποιήσατε οὐ μηδίσαντες. τοῖς δέ, either 1)* the Thebans, or 2) the 
Hellenes exclusive of the Athenians. In the latter case the speaker 
is chiefly thinking of the conduct of the Plataeans, not in the 
Persian war, but in more recent times. 


ἐβούλοντο τούς re ὑμῶν χείρους μηκέτι μᾶλλον γενέσθαι, τούς τε ἀμείνους 65, 3, 
τὰ ἄξια ἔχειν, σωφρονισταὶ ὄντες τῆς γνώμης, καὶ τῶν σωμάτων τὴν πόλιν 
οὐκ ἀλλοτριοῦντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐς τὴν ξυγγένειαν οἰκειοῦντες. 

μᾶλλον «.t.A. 1) ‘Should no longer be bad instead of good’ 
(μᾶλλον, scil. ἢ ἀγαθούς) : or 2)* ‘should no longer go on growing 
worse and worse’ (μᾶλλον χείρους). σωφρονισταὶ ὄντες κιτλ. ‘In- 
tending to reform your principles, and not to alienate (or estrange) 
Plataea from your persons (i.e. from her citizens, by death or 
exile), but to bring her back into the circle of her kindred.’ 


65. 3. 


66. 2 


67. I. 


67. 6. 


198 THUCYDIDES. 


ἀλλοτριοῦντες is joined with τῶν σωμάτων, but in its opposition to 
οἰκειοῦντες is to be taken absolutely. 


εἰ dpa καὶ ἐδοκοῦμέν τι ἀνεπιεικέστερον πρᾶξαι οὗ pera τοῦ πλήθους ὑμῶν 
ἐσελθόντες, τὰ μὲν ὅμοια οὐκ ἀνταπέδοτε ἡμῖν, μήτε νεωτερίσαι ἔργῳ, λόγοις 
τε πείσειν ὥστε ἐξελθεῖν, ἐπιθέμενοι δὲ παρὰ τὴν ξύ K.T.A. 

νεωτερίσαι and πείσειν are both explanatory of ὅμοια, the indefinite 
or negative notion taking the aorist and the affirmative the future. 
In the future πείσειν the simple fact seems to be expressed as an 
intention. See English text, and compare for similar uses of the 
future iv. 9 fin. σφίσι δὲ τοῦ τείχους ταύτῃ ἀσθενεστάτου Svros, émt- 
σπάσασθαι αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖτο προθυμήσεσθαι: iv. 126 fin. τοῦ re és χεῖρας 
ἐλθεῖν πιστότερον τὸ ἐκφοβήσειν ἡμᾶς ἀκινδύνως ἡγοῦνται" ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἂν 
πρὸ τούτου ἐχρῶντο, where in the same way the negative rov... 
ἐλθεῖν is expressed by the aorist and the affirmative τὸ ἐκφοβήσειν 
by the future. 


καὶ ταῦτα, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, τούτου ἕνεκα ἐπεξήλθομεν καὶ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ 
ἡμῶν͵ ἵνα ὑμεῖς μὲν εἰδῆτε δικαίως αὐτῶν καταγνωσόμενοι, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἔτι 
ὁσιώτερον τετιμωρημένοι. 

καταγνωσόμενοι refers to the sentence which the Lacedaemonians 
are about to pass on the Plataeans, τετιμωρημένοι to the vengeance 
which the Thebans have already taken upon them by assisting to 
capture their city, and by urging their execution. Cp. § 5 infra, 
οὐκ ἀνταποδόντες νῦν τὴν ἴσην τιμωρίαν" ἔννομα yap πείσονται, where the 
past and future sufferings of the Plataeans are similarly blended. 

ἡμεῖς δὲ ἔτι ὁσιώτερον τετιμωρημένοι iS to be construed, not with 
εἰδῶμεν supplied from εἰδῆτε, but with some verb like φαινώμεθα, i. 6. 
the passive of εἰδῶμεν, ‘that it may be shown how righteous has 
been our vengeance.’ Probably the change in construction has 
arisen from the desire to combine antithesis in the form of the 
sentence with conciseness. 


ov λόγων τοὺς ἀγῶνας προθήσοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἔργων, ὧν ἀγαθῶν μὲν ὄντων 
βραχεῖα ἣ ἀπαγγελία ἀρκεῖ, ἁμαρτανομένων δὲ λόγοι ἔπεσι κοσμηθέντες 
προκαλύμματα γίγνονται. 

ἁμαρτανομένων δέ, 561], ἔργων, like ἡμαρτήθη ὁ πλοῦς, ii. 65 fin. 


NOTES, BOOK 17]. 199 


GAN’ ἣν οἱ ἡγεμόνες, ὥσπερ viv ὑμεῖς, κεφαλαιώσαντες πρὸς τοὺς ξύμ- 67. 7. 
παντας διαγνώμας ποιήσησθε, ἧσσόν τις ἐπ᾽ ἀδίκοις ἔργοις λόγους καλοὺς 
ζητήσει. 

ἣν ὥσπερ νῦν ὑμεῖς ποιήσησθεΞεῆν, ὥσπερ νῦν ὑμεῖς διαγνώμας ποιεῖσθε, 
διαγνώμας ποιήσωνται. κεφαλαιώσαντες refers to the shortness of the 
Lacedaemonian question, πρὸς τοὺς ξύμπαντας to its being asked of 
all the captives without distinction. 

Here again (cp. note on c. 67. 1) the Thebans consider the ques- 
tion as already involving the condemnation of the prisoners. 


οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι δικασταὶ νομίζοντες τὸ ἐπερώτημα σφίσιν ὀρθῶς ἕξειν, 68. 1. 
εἴ τι ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγαθὸν πεπόνθασι, διότι τόν τε ἄλλον χρόνον 
ἠξίουν δῆθεν αὐτοὺς κατὰ τὰς παλαιὰς Παυσανίου μετὰ τὸν Μῆδον σπονδὰς 
ἡσυχάζειν, καὶ ὅτε ὕστερον ἃ πρὸ τοῦ περιτειχίζεσθαι προείχοντο αὐτοῖς, 
κοινοὺς εἶναι κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνα, ds οὐκ ἐδέξαντο, ἡγούμενοι τῇ ἑαυτῶν δικαίᾳ 
βουλήσει ἔκσπονδοι ἤδη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν κακῶς πεπονθέναι, αὖθις τὸ αὐτὸ ἕνα 
ἕκαστον παραγαγόντες καὶ ἐρωτῶντες, εἴ τι Λακεδαιμονίους καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους 
ἀγαθὸν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ δεδρακότες εἰσίν, ὁπότε μὴ φαῖεν, ἀπάγοντες ἀπέκτεινον, 
καὶ ἐξαίρετον ἐποιήσαντο οὐδένα. 

τόν τε ἄλλον χρόνον refers to the time between the Persian and 
Peloponnesian wars. The assumption that the Plataeans were 
bound by the treaty made with Pausanias never under any circum- 
stances to fight azainst the Peloponnesians was regarded by 
Thucydides as a mere pretence (δῆθεν). 

ἠξίουν... ἡσυχάζειν need not imply a formal request. Such a request 
is certainly mentioned in ii. 72 init., but it is better to refer the 
words to the general attitude of the Lacedaemonians. For the 
imperfect ἠξίουν and the general expression of time (τὸν ἄλλον 
χρόνον) indicate not so much a particular occasion as the stand- 
ing offence which the conduct and temper of the Plataeans gave 
to the Peloponnesians. 

The construction of the passage is doubtful. 

Either 1)* dre ὕστερον is dependent on ὡς οὐκ ἐδέξαντο. The τέ in 
τόν τε ἄλλον χρόνον is slightly out of place, for it should have been 
joined with διότε : ὡς οὐκ ἐδέξαντο answers to διότι ἠξίουν and gives 
the second reason for the conclusion of the Pelopannesians. 

Or 2) ὅτε ὕστερον is dependent on ἠξίουν ἡσυχάζειν αὐτούς repeated, 


200 THUCYDIDES. 


68. 1. and ὡς οὐκ ἐδέξαντο after ὅτε ὕστερον involves an asyndeton, which is 
concealed by the complexity of the sentence. 

In either case a second mpoefyovro has to be supplied, ὅτε ὕστερον, 
ἃ πρὸ τοῦ περιτειχίζεσθαι mpoelxovro αὐτοῖς, mpoetxovro. 

Or 3) ἠξίουν ἡσυχάζειν αὐτούς being still repeated before ὅτε, 
there is a confusion between ὅτε ὕστερον, A πρὸ τοῦ περιτειχίζεσθαι προεί- 
xovro αὐτούς, κοινοὺς εἶναι κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνα, οὐκ ἐδέξαντο, and ὅτε ὕστερον πρὸ 
τοῦ περιτειχίζεσθαι προείχοντο αὐτοῖς κοινοὺς εἶναι κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνα, ὡς οὐκ ἐδέξαντο. 

Or 4) placing a comma after ὅτε ὕστερον, ὡς may be a resumption 
of dre, the clause 4 mpd τοῦ περιτειχίζεσθαι x.r.A. being the remote 
accusative after ἐδέξαντο: ‘and when, in reference to the offers 
which they made, when I say they did not receive these offers.’ 

Lastly, and this is the simplest explanation, 5) ὡς οὐκ ἐδέξαντο 
may depend on the clause which follows, ἡγούμενοι κιτιλ., rather than 
UPON νομίζοντες x.7.A., Of which it is the resumption. 


68. 4. σχεδὸν δέ τι καὶ τὸ ξύμπαν περὶ Πλαταιῶν of Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὕτως 
ἀποτετραμμένοι ἐγένοντο Θηβαίων ἕνεκα, νομίζοντες ἐς τὸν πόλεμον αὐτοὺς 
ἄρτι τότε καθιστάμενον ὠφελίμους εἶναι. καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ Πλάταιαν ἅὅτει 
τρίτῳ καὶ ἐνενηκοστῴ, ἐπειδὴ ᾿Αθηναίων ξύμμαχοι ἐγένοντο, οὕτως ἐτελεύ- 
τησεν. 

σχεδὸν δέ τι καὶ τὸ Evprav=‘ pretty nearly throughout the whole 
affair,’ or ‘all through the whole affair:’ καί adds emphasis to ra 
ξύμπαν. σχεδόν τι, though in form qualifying, is not so in meaning. 

ἄρτι τότε, Cp. note on ill. 3. 1. 

ἔτει τρίτῳ κτὰ. The ἃ priori reasons urged by Mr. Grote 
(Part ii. ch. xxxi, ad fin.) against the date here assigned to the 
alliance of Plataea and Athens (519 s.c.), and partly inferred from the 
narrative of Herodotus (vi. 108), have a good deal of weight. But 
they can scarcely be allowed to counterbalance the express and 
particular statement of Thucydides. 


69.1. αἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα νῆες τῶν Πελοποννησίων ai Λεσβίοις βοηθοὶ ἐλθοῦσαι, 
ὡς τότε φεύγουσαι διὰ τοῦ πελάγους ἔκ τε τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐπιδιωχθεῖσαι καὶ 
πρὸς τῇ Κρήτῃ χειμασθεῖσαι καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς σποράδες πρὸς τὴν Πελοπόν- 
νῆσον κατηνέχθησαν, καταλαμβάνουσιν ἐν τῇ Κυλλήνῃ τρισκαίδεκα τριήρεις 
᾿ς Ἃ 


NOTES, BOOK 71. 201 


καί after χειμασθεῖσαι joins the preceding participles 1) with 69. 1. 
<=—nopades, Ξεσπαρεῖσαι, or 2) placing the comma after an’ αὐτῆς in- 
== tead of after σποράδες, with ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, Ξελιποῦσαι αὐτήν, σποράδες 
Ν᾿ sing then closely connected with κατηνέχθησαν. 


ἐβούλοντο γὰρ of Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ὡς τῆς Λέσβον ἡμαρτήκεσαν, πλέον τὸ B69. 2. 
χπαναυτικὸν ποιήσαντες ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν πλεῦσαι στασιάζουσαν, δώδεκα μὲν 
ναυσὶ μόναις παρόντων ᾿Αθηναίων περὶ Ναύπακτον, πρὶν δὲ πλέον τι ἐπι- 
βοηθῆσαι ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν ναυτικόν, ὅπως προφθάσωσι. 
ὅπως προφθάσωσι follows ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν πλεῦσαι. The construc- 
tion would have been clearer if Thucydides had written ὅπως δὲ 
προφθάσωσι πρὶν πλέον τι ἐπιβοηθῆσαι ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν ναντικόν, but the 
present order brings out the connection between δώδεκα μὲν ναυσ᾽ 
and πρὶν δὲ πλέον κιτὰλ. ᾿ 


τῷ μὲν λόγῳ ὀκτακοσίων ταλάντων τοῖς προξένοις διηγγυημένοι. 10. I. 

τοῖς προξένοις NOt exactly = ὑπὸ τῶν προξένων, but a ‘dativus ethicus’ 
‘bailed on the security of their proxeni,’ that is of Corinthian 
citizens who were the representatives of Corcyra at Corinth. As 
the captives numbered about 250 and the nominal sum required 
was 800 talents, or £192,000, the ransom of each man would 
be 3} talents, or £768. Cp. i. 55 med. where it is said of the 
captives, ἐτύγχανον δὲ καὶ δυνάμει αὐτῶν οἱ πλείους πρῶτοι ὄντες τῆς 
πόλεως. But, as the sum was never intended to be paid, we need 
not, with some of the commentators, discuss the unusual amount 
of the ransom. 


ὑπάγουσιν αὐτὸν οὗτοι οἱ ἄνδρες ἐς δίκην. 70. 3. 
501]. the conspirators who had returned from Corinth; not, as in 
the English text, the partizans of the Peloponnesians generally. 


(npia δὲ caf ἑκάστην χάρακα ἐπέκειτο στατήρ. 70. 4. 
_ The values assigned in the notes on the English text to the 
Corinthian drachma (i. 27 med.) and stater, and to the Aeginetan 
drachma (v. 47. 6; 63 med.) are those usually given on the as- 
sumption a) that the Corinthian drachma was identical with the 
Aeginetan, δ) that the ratio between the Aeginetan and the Attic 


81. 2. 


81. 3. 


81. 4. 


204 THUCYDIDES. 


democracy, who thus put out of the way the men who had 
volunteered to help them (c. 80 init.), rots re ἱκέταις ἥεσαν ἐς λόγους καὶ 
τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅπως σωθήσεται ἡ πόλις καί τινας αὐτῶν ἔπεισαν ἐς τὰς ναῦς 
ἐσβῆναι. . 

The Hyllaic harbour in which the massacre took place was the 
part of the town most completely in the hands of the democratic 
party (c. 72 fin.), ἀφικομένης δὲ νυκτὸς ὁ μὲν δῆμος ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν καὶ τὰ 
μετέωρα τῆς πόλεως καταφεύγει καὶ αὐτοῦ ξυλλεγεὶς ἱδρύθη καὶ τὸν Ὑλλαϊκὸν 
λιμένα εἶχον. This harbour appears to have been south of the 
town, as we are told that the other harbour was the one facing the 
mainland. The ancient Corcyra was situated upon the promontory 
south of the modern town. 

ἐν ὅσῳ περιεκομίζοντο. The massacre was the work of a few 
minutes : while the ships were going from one harbour to the other 
the popular party slew any of their enemies whom they caught in 
the town, and when the ships arrived slew the oligarchs who were 
in them. 

ἐκβιβάζοντες amexpavro. Nearly all the MSS. read ἀπεχώρησαν, 
which gives no sense; for we should not be told what became 
of the captives, ἀπεχρῶντο, the reading of one (Ven.) and found 
in the margin of two good MSS. (Aug. Cl.), and ἀνεχρήσαντο, ἃ 
very natural emendation, are both attributed to Thucydides by 
the lexicographers. Neither ἀπεχρῶντο nor ἀνεχρήσαντο are found 
elsewhere in Thucydides, which is some reason for assuming that 
one or other of them is the true reading in this passage. One 
inferior MS. (Parm.) has ἀνεχρῶντο in the margin. 


καὶ ἐκ τῶν δένδρων τινὲς ἀπήγχοντο. 
I.e. ‘from the trees which were in the precinct of the temple.’ 


ἡμέρας τε ἑπτά, as ἀφικόμενος ὁ Εὐρυμέδων ταῖς ἑξήκοντα ναυσὶ παρέμεινε, 
Κερκυραῖοι σφῶν αὐτῶν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς δοκοῦντας εἶναι ἐφόνευον, τὴν μὲν 
αἰτίαν ἐπιφέροντες τοῖς τὸν δῆμον καταλύουσιν, ἀπέθανον δέ τινες καὶ 
ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἕνεκα, καὶ ἄλλοι χρημάτων σφίσιν ὀφειλομένων ὑπὸ τῶν 
λαβόντων. 

The stress is upon τὴν αἰτίαν. The words τοῖς τὸν δῆμον κατα- 
λύουσιν express not the fact of the men’s guilt, but the nature of 


70. 4. 


70. 5. 


7]. 2. 


74. 1. 


202 THUCYDIDES. 


drachma was 5:3. Hultsch (Gr. und Rom. Metrologie) denies 
both these statements, and estimates the ratio just mentioned not 
at 5:3 but at 7:5. He would reckon the Corinthian and Aeginetan 
drachma, not at 1s. 4d., but at 6d. (p. 260) and 1s. 1d. (p. 258) re- 
spectively, and the Corinthian stater, not at 2s. 2d, but at ls. 6d. 
(p. 260). The other view of the ratio between the Attic and 
Aeginetan standard rests on a direct statement of Pollux, iv. 76, 86. 
To this view other, but less direct, statements of ancient writers, and 
the actual weight of coins which have been preserved, are opposed 
(Dict. of Ant. 5. v. Pondus ; Hultsch, p. 134 ff.) 


ὀφλόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἱερὰ ἱκετῶν καθεζομένων διὰ πλῆθος τῆς 
ζημίας, ὅπως ταξάμενοι ἀποδῶσιν, ὁ Πειθίας (ἐτύγχανε γὰρ καὶ βουλῆς ὧν) 
πείθει, ὥστε τῷ νόμῳ χρήσασθαι. οἱ δ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τῷ τε νόμῳ ἐξείργοντο, καὶ 
ἅμα x,7.X. 

ὅπως ταξάμενοι ἀποδῶσιν. ‘That they might pay by arrangement,’ 
or ‘ by instalments,’ lit. ‘fixing’ the times. Cp. i. 101 fin. χρήματά 
τε ὅσα ἔδει ἀποδοῦναι αὐτίκα ταξάμενοι καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν φέρειν. 

τῷ νόμῳ, either dative of cause or reason, ‘ by reason of the law,’ 
or dative of instrument (cp. Herod. ix. 111, ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἐξεργό- 
μενος). ἐξείργοντο, ‘ they were prevented.’ Either 1)* generally, ‘ they 
could do nothing.’ Arnold compares Herod i. 31, ἐκληϊόμενοι τῇ 
ὥρῃ, Isocr. Archidamus (vi.) 84, ἂν δ᾽ dpa ψευσθῶμεν τῶν ἔλπίδων καὶ 
πανταχόθεν ἐξειργώμεθα. Or 2) ‘they were prevented from doing 
what they wanted,’ i.e. paying by instalments, τοῦ ταξάμενοι ἀποδοῦναι. 

Possibly the offenders may have had the care of the sacred wood 
or grove which surrounded the temple. But of this occasion and 
perhaps aggravation of their offence Thucydides says nothing. 


πέμπουσι δὲ καὶ és τὰς ᾿Αθήνας εὐθὺς πρέσβεις περί re τῶν πεπραγμένων 
διδάξοντας, ὡς ξυνέφερε, καὶ τοὺς ἐκεῖ καταπεφευγότας πείσοντας μηδὲν 
ἀνεπιτήδειον πράσσειν, ὅπως μή τις ἐπιστροφὴ γένηται. 

ὅπως μή «A. is to be taken after πείσοντας, not after πράσσειν. 
For the anticipated revolution or reaction would be dreaded, not 
by the refugees at Athens, but by the oligarchs at Corcyra. 


διαλιπούσης δ᾽ ἡμέρας μάχη αὖθις γίγνεται. 
Scil. the day already mentioned in c. 73. 


NOTES, BOOK 777. 203 


δείσαντες δὲ ἐκεῖνοι, μὴ ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἀποπεμφθῶσι, καθίζουσιν ἐς τὸ τῶν δ. 3. 
Διοςκούρων ἱερόν. Νικόστρατος δὲ αὐτοὺς ἀνίστη τε καὶ παρεμυθεῖτο. ὡς δ᾽ 
οὐκ ἔπειθεν, ὅ δῆμος ὁπλισθεὶς ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ, ὡς οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ὑγιὲς 
διανοουμένων τῇ τοῦ μὴ ξυμπλεῖν ἀπιστίᾳ, τά τε ὅπλα αὐτῶν ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν 
ἔλαβε καὶ αὐτῶν τινας, οἷς ἐπέτυχον, εἰ μὴ Νεκόστρατος ἐκώλυσε, διέφθειραν 
ἄν. ὁρῶντες δὲ οἱ ἄλλοι τὰ γιγνόμενα καθίζουσιν ἐς τὸ Ἡραῖον ἱκέται, καὶ 
γίγνονται οὐκ ἔλάσσους τετρακοσίων. 

τῇ τοῦ μὴ ξυμπλεῖν ἀπιστίᾳ. Either 1) the mistrust which was 
shown by their not sailing, or by their reluctance to sail, or 2) μή 
being a repetition of the negative in ἀπιστία, ‘ by their mistrustful 
reluctance to sail,’ cp. ii. 49 med. ἡ ἀπορία τοῦ μὴ ἡσυχάζειν, ‘ their 
distressing inability to take rest.’ 

αὐτῶν τινας, probably a few who, unlike the rest, had accepted the 
offer of Nicostratus. of ἄλλοι, those of the suppliants in the 
temple of the Dioscuri who did not accept the offer of Nicostratus. 
They fled to the temple of Here probably because they considered 
it a holier sanctuary. But it is not easy to see how they could 
have passed safely from one temple to the other, unless under the 
protection of Nicostratus or when the opposite party was not 
watching them. οἱ ἄλλοι cannot mean ‘those who had not taken 
refuge in the temple of the Dioscuri,’ for then Thucydides would 
leave unfinished the narrative of the fate of those who had taken 
refuge there. 


of μὲν οὖν Πελοποννήσιοι τῆς νυκτὸς εὐθὺς κατὰ τάχος ἐκομίζοντο ἐπ᾽ 8]. 1. 
οἴκον παρὰ τὴν γῆν. 

For similar sneers at the proceedings of Alcidas cp. the narra- 
tive of his expedition to Ionia, especially iii, 33 init. ὡς γῇ ἑκούσιος 
ov σχήσων ἄλλῃ ἣ Πελοποννήσφ. 


Κερκυραῖοι δὲ αἰσθόμενοι τάς τε ᾿Αττικὰς ναῦς προσπλεούσας τάς τε τῶν Bl, 2. 
πολεμίων οἰχομένας, λαβόντες τούς τε Μεσσηνίους ἐς τὴν πόλιν ἤγαγον 
πρότερον ἔξω ὄντας, καὶ τὰς ναῦς περιπλεῦσαι κελεύσαντες, ἃς ἐπλήρωσαν, 
ἐς τὸν Ὑλλαϊκὸν λιμένα, ἐν ὅσῳ περιεκομίζοντο, τῶν ἐχθρῶν εἴ τινα λάβοιεν, 
ἀπέκτεινον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν νεῶν ὅσους ἔπεισαν ἐσβῆναι ἐκβιβάζοντες ἀπεχρῶντο. 

The popular party divided their enemies. Thucydides, as his 
manner is, is silent about the incredible perfidy of the Corcyraean 


81. 2. 


81. 3. 


81. 4. 


204 THUCYDIDES. 


democracy, who thus put out of the way the men who had 
volunteered to help them (c. 80 init.), rots re ἱκέταις ἥεσαν ἐς λόγους καὶ 
τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅπως σωθήσεται ἡ πόλις" καί τινας αὐτῶν ἔπεισαν ἐς Tas ναῦς 
ἐσβῆναι. . 

The Hyllaic harbour in which the massacre took place was the 
part of the town most completely in the hands of the democratic 
party (c. 72 fin.), ἀφικομένης δὲ νυκτὸς ὁ μὲν δῆμος ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν καὶ τὰ 
μετέωρα τῆς πόλεως καταφεύγει καὶ αὐτοῦ ξυλλεγεὶς ἱδρύθη καὶ τὸν Ὑλλαϊκὸν 
λιμένα εἶχον. This harbour appears to have been south of the 
town, as we are told that the other harbour was the one facing the 
mainland. The ancient Corcyra was situated upon the promontory 
south of the modern town. 

ἐν Sow περιεκομίζοντου The massacre was the work of a few 
minutes : while the ships were going from one harbour to the other 
the popular party slew any of their enemies whom they caught in 
the town, and when the ships arrived slew the oligarchs who were 
in them. 

ἐκβιβάζοντες ἀπεχρῶντος Nearly all the MSS. read ἀπεχώρησαν, 
which gives no sense; for we should not be told what became 
of the captives. ἀπεχρῶντο, the reading of one (Ven.) and found 
in the margin of two good MSS. (Aug. Cl.), and ἀνεχρήσαντο, a 
very natural emendation, are both attributed to Thucydides by 
the lexicographers. Neither ἀπεχρῶντο nor ἀνεχρήσαντο are found 
elsewhere in Thucydides, which is some reason for assuming that 
one or other of them is the true reading in this passage. One 
inferior MS. (Parm.) has ἀνεχρῶντο in the margin. 


καὶ ἐκ τῶν δένδρων τινὲς ἀπήγχοντο. 
I.e.‘ from the trees which were in the precinct of the temple.’ 


ἡμέρας τε ἑπτά, as ἀφικόμενος ὁ Εὐρυμέδων ταῖς ἑξήκοντα ναυσὶ παρέμεινε, 
Κερκυραῖοι σφῶν αὐτῶν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς δοκοῦντας εἶναι ἐφόνευον, τὴν μὲν 
αἰτίαν ἐπιφέροντες τοῖς τὸν δῆμον καταλύουσιν, ἀπέθανον δέ τινες καὶ 
ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἕνεκα, καὶ ἄλλοι χρημάτων σφίσιν ὀφειλομένων ὑπὸ τῶν 
λαβόντων. 

The stress is upon τὴν αἰτίαν. The words τοῖς τὸν δῆμον κατα- 
λύουσιν express not the fact of the men’s guilt, but the nature of 


NOTES, BOOK 70). 205 


the charge brought against them, scil. τοῦ τὸν δῆμον καταλύειν. The 81, 4. 

article with xaradvovow means that the charge which the people 

brought was only applicable to those who aimed at subverting the 
CGemocracy. But the fact was that men were put to death from all 
sorts of motives. 


οὕτως ὠμὴ στάσις mpovywpnoe’ καὶ ἔδοξε μᾶλλον, διότι ἐν τοῖς πρώτη 8], 6. 
«γένετο. 
στάσις in the first clause is general, ‘revolution,’ but, with ἔδοξε, ἡ 
«στάσις must be supplied from the sense of the words οὕτως dp} 
«στάσις προὐχώρησε. For ἐν τοῖς πρώτη cp. note on iii. 17. 1. 

‘Other revolutions were worse, although this seemed the most 
atrocious because it was the first of them.’ This is the spirit of 
the words ἔδοξε μᾶλλον κτλ, And the same point of view is main- 
tained throughout, and is indicated by the expression m ἤθη in 
84 init., and probably by τοιαύταις ὀργαῖς ταῖς πρώταις ἐχρήσαντο, 85 
init. (although it is possible that these words may refer to the 
second massacre at Corcyra, iv. 47, 48). Having regard to the 
strength of language used by a writer who does not often ex- 
aggerate, we naturally ask, to what does Thucydides refer when, 
after describing every sort of perfidy and cruelty, he speaks of the 
Corcyraean sedition as only the first in a series of similar and even 
greater horrors? 

The chief disturbances which occurred in the lifetime of Thu- 
cydides were those attending the establishment of the 400 and of 
the 30 at Athens; now in both these, though the oligarchs were cruel 
and arbitrary, great moderation was shown by the party which 
overthrew them. There were also contemporary with Thucydides 
a revolution at Megara (Thuc. iv. 74. 2, see note), referred to 
possibly, but not certainly, by Aristotle, and with a difference 
(Pol. iv. 15. 15, v. 8. 5, 5. 4), in which the aristocracy put to 
death 100 of the democratical party, although they had taken an 
oath to observe an amnesty; a revolution at Argos (Thuc. v. 82); 
at Syracuse (Thuc. viii. 85, Diod. xiii. 63. 75); and at Samos 
(Thuc. viii. 21, and later, Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 6, εὐθὺς δὲ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη 
“Ἑλλὰς ἀφειστήκει ᾿Αθηναίων μετὰ τὴν ναυμαχίαν πλὴν Σαμίων' οὗτοι δὲ 
σφαγὰς τῶν γνωρίμων ποιήσαντες κατεῖχον τὴν πόλιν. The story told 


206 THUCYDIDES. 


81. 6. in Heraclides Ponticus of the cruelties committed by contending 
factions at Miletus (Athenaeus, xii. p. 523), probably relate to 
that earlier time of civil strife which is described by Herodotus, 
v. 28. 

But none of these revolutions were attended, as far as we know, 
with any special circumstances of cruelty or with the extirpation of 
the opposite party, except those at Argos (cp. Pausanias, ii. 20, 
Diod. xii. 80) and at Samos. It may be observed, however, that 
Thucydides appears in his account of the στάσις at Megara to refer 
back to his general description of στάσει. He thus leaves the 
impression that he here means no more than actually occurred at 
Megara. Cp. the language which he uses iv. 74, ὁρκώσαντες πίστεσι 
μεγάλαις μηδὲν μνησικακήσειν... καὶ τούτων πέρι ἀναγκάσαντες τὸν δῆμον 
ψῆφον φανερὰν διενεγκεῖν, ὡς κατεγνώσθησαν, ἔκτειναν, With iii. 82 med. καὶ 
ὅρκοι εἴ που ἄρα γένοιντο ξυναλλαγῆς, 83 init. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὁ διαλύσων οὔτε 
λόγος ἐχυρὸς οὔτε ὅρκος φοβερός, 82 fin, μετὰ ψήφου ἀδίκου καταγνώσεως. 
There is no trace in Aristotle’s account of revolutions in Greek 
states that exaggerated cruelty generally prevailed. 

We can only reply to the difficulty thus raised that Thucydides 
may have been led away by a real sense of the political evils of 
party, may we say also by a love of rhetoric which for once is too 
strong for him? The picture is aggravated by the horror of 
anarchy in the writer’s mind. In this passage, and perhaps in this 
passage only, he has forgotten the character of a critical historian. 
But it may be suggested that he is writing under the impression 
created by the tyranny of the Thirty and the revolutions in the 
islands, which were abetted or encouraged by Lysander. Through- 
out the Athenian empire, after the fall of the city, the miseries of 
the allies must have been great, and we find Lysander playing 
much the same part in them which is attributed to the Athenian 
generals at Corcyra (Plut. Lys. xiii), οὔτε yap ἀριστίνδην οὔτε πλου- 
τίνδην ἀπεδείκνυε τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ἀλλ᾽ ἑταιρείαις καὶ ξενίαις χαριζόμενος τὰ 
πράγματα καὶ κυρίους ποιῶν τιμῆς τε καὶ κολάσεως, πολλαῖς δὲ παραγενό- 
μενος αὐτὸς σφαγαῖε καὶ συνεκβάλλων τοὺς τῶν φίλων ἐχθροὺς οὐκ ἐπιεικὲς 


ἐδίδου ror ακοδαιμονίων ἀρχῆς. We should probably 
und her passages of Thucydides better 


ed to complete the whole work. 


NOTES, BOOK 11]. 207 


Or Thucydides may have been silent respecting other atrocities 81. 6. 
because it did not come within his general plan to dwell further on 
the details of Greek revolutions. Something may be allowed for 
our ignorance of the facts. Scenes like those which occurred at 
Corcyra may have been enacted elsewhere, and no record of them 
may have been preserved. Nameless cruelty, like nameless virtue, 
has often been hidden from the eye of posterity. 


ἐπεὶ ὕστερόν ye καὶ πᾶν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τὸ “Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκινήθη, διαφορῶν 82. 1. 
οὐσῶν ἑκασταχοῦ τοῖς τε τῶν δήμων προστάταις τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἐπάγεσθαι 
καὶ τοῖς ὀλίγοις τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ ἐν μὲν εἰρήνῃ οὐκ ἂν ἐχόντων πρό- 
φασιν, οὐδ᾽ ἑτοίμων παρακαλεῖν αὐτούς᾽ πολεμουμένων δὲ καὶ ξυμμαχίας 
ἅμα ἑκατέροις τῇ τῶν ἐναντίων κακώσει καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
προσποιήσει ῥᾳδίως αἷ ἐπαγωγαὶ τοῖς νεωτερίζειν τι βουλομένοις ἐπορί- 
ζοντο. | 

The infinitive ἐπάγεσθαι is governed by the idea of an object 
contained partly in ἐκινήθη, partly in διαφορῶν. Notwithstanding 
Arnold’s argument from usage to the contrary, some sense of the 
verb διαφέρειν probably enters into the substantive διαφορά, as into 
the adjective διάφορος in i. 68 init. ὡς ἕνεκεν τῶν αὐτοῖς ἰδίᾳ διαφόρων 


λέγουσι, and in iv. 87 init. οὕτω πολλὴν περιωπὴν τῶν ἡμῖν ἐς τὰ μέγιστα 
διαφόρων ποιούμεθα. 


ξυμμαχίας ... ἐπορίζοντος Again the construction is uncertain. 
ξυμμαχίας is either 1)* a genitive absolute with which some verb 
such as ὑπαρχούσης is to be supplied from the previous sentence— 
cp. διαφορῶν οὐσῶν above: or 2) the genitive after al émaywyai, 
being the emphatic word, and therefore placed at the beginning 
of the sentence. ‘When they were at war, then (xa‘) an alliance 
was readily introduced.’ 

πολεμουμένων corresponds to ἐν μὲν εἰρήνῃ. But for the genitive 
absolute which should have followed, answering to the clause οὐκ 
ἂν ἐχόντων... οὐδὲ ἑτοίμων, the finite verb ἐπορίζοντο has been sub- 
stituted. 


καὶ ἐπέπεσε πολλὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ κατὰ στάσιν ταῖς πόλεσι, γιγνόμενα 82. 2. 
μὲν καὶ ἀεὶ ἐσόμενα Ews ἂν ἡ αὐτὴ φύσις ἀνθρώπων ἢ, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ 
ἡσυχαΐτερα καὶ τοῖς εἴδεσι διηλλαγμένα, ὡς ἂν ἕκασται al μεταβολαὶ τῶν 
ξἔνντυχιῖν ἐφις τῶνται. 


208 THUCYDIDES. 


82. 2. paddov=1) μᾶλλον γιγνόμενα, OF 2) μᾶλλον χαλεπά, In cc. 82-84 
Thucydides is describing the features of revolution not in Corcyra 
only, but in Hellenic states generally, and the whole passage is 
one of those digressions in which Thucydides sometimes indulges, 
e. g. the digression about Pausanias and Themistocles, about Teres 
and Tereus, about the fall of the Pisistratidae, etc. It may have 
been added after the fall of Athens. The first words, καὶ ἐπέπεσε 
κιτλ,, are a resumption of ἐπεὶ ὕστερόν ye κιτὶλ., at the beginning 
of the chapter, which prepare the way for the more general con- 
sideration of the subject. 


82.3. ἐστασίαζέ re οὖν τὰ τῶν πόλεων, καὶ τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντα wou πύστει τῶν 
Ἡρογενομένων πολὺ ἐπέφερε τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ xawopoba τὰς διανοίας 
τῶν τ᾽ ἐπιχειρήσεων περιτεχνήσει καὶ τῶν τιμωριῶν ἀτοπίᾳ. 

τὰ τῶν πόλεων is ἃ periphrasis for αἱ πόλεις (as τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντα for 
al ἐφυστερίζουσαι), but has a somewhat more general meaning, 
‘everything about the cities was in a state of revolution.’ 

πύστει τῶν προγενομένων x.7.A., lit. ‘by reason of hearing what had 
been done before greatly exaggerated the extravagance of the 
revolutionary temper.’ In a certain sense the report of what had 
been done before might be called the cause of later excesses, for 
it suggested possibilities of still greater atrocities. If succeeding 
generations had never known the cruelties which had been com- 
mitted by their predecessors, they could not have consciously 
exceeded them. 


82. 4. καὶ τὴν εἰωθυῖαν ἀξίωσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐς τὰ ἔργα ἀντήλλαξαν τῇ 
δικαιώσει. 
ἀξίωσες =‘ value,’ or generally received meaning. ἐς τὰ ἔργα goes 
with ἀξίωσιν. τῇ δικαιώσει 1), ‘in their estimate,’ scil. of men’s con- 
duct; or 2)", ‘ by their thinking fit,’ i. 6. ‘as they thought fit.’ 


82, 4. τὸ δ᾽ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ ἀνδρὸς μοίρᾳ προσετέθη, ἀσφάλεια δὲ τὸ ἐπιβου- 
λεύσασθαι, ἀποτροπῆς πρόφασις εὔλογος. 

ἀσφάλεια δὲ τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι, the reading of nearly all the MSS., 

is not indefensible. Either 1) τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι may be an epexe- 

getical acc. after ἀσφάλεια, ‘security, i.e. ‘deliberation,’ a possible 


NOTES, BOOK 11. 209 


ΕΝ 
Meaning of ἐτιβουλεύσασθαι, or 2) τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι may be taken 82. 4. - 
in the more common sense of ‘ conspiring,’ as the so-called ‘acc. 
of reference,’ (cp. note on ii. 87. 1) after dopdAea,=‘caution in con- 
Spiring.’ But the loose construction of τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι with the 
Simple substantive is very harsh. 
For the dative ἀσφαλείᾳ (one bad MS. and Poppo) cp. iii. 56 fin. 
οἱ μὴ τὰ ξύμφορα πρὸς τὴν ἔφοδον αὑτοῖς ἀσφαλείᾳ πράσσοντες. 


οὐ γὰρ μετὰ τῶν κειμένων νόμων ὠφελίας αἱ τοιαῦται ξύνοδοι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ 88. 6. 
Τοὺς καθεστῶτας πλεονεξίᾳ. | 

1) ὠφελίας may depend on τῶν νόμων, ‘for such combinations are 
Not formed in accordance with established laws which have for 
their object the public good ;’ or 2) τῶν νόμων may follow ὠφελίας, 
4re not based on the public good of established laws;’ i.e. like 
“stablished laws on the public good; or 3)* ὠφελίας may be taken 
asa Predicate with ξύνοδοι, ‘such combinations are not formed for 


the Public good.’ Thus the antithesis to πλεονεξίᾳ becomes more 
POinted, 


Ene ar yr ae 


Tee τι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων καλῶς λεγόμενα ἐνεδέχοντο ἔργων φυλακῇ, εἰ 82. 7. 
“ροξχζοιον, καὶ οὗ γενναιότητι. 
P Either 1)* by watching their enemies’ actions, or 2) by watch- 
“Alex ess in their own actions, i.e. by increased precautions. The 
latte, gives the better opposition, and is confirmed by ἀπὸ τῶν 
Ἵν w τῆς ἐπιμελείας, ‘by the vigilance of your administration,’ 
Ὧι. 46 fin. εἰ προὔχοιεν, 501]. of ἐναντίοι. 


ὅξον δ᾽ οἱ πολλοὶ κακοῦργοι ὄντες δεξιοὶ κέκληνται ἢ ἀμαθεῖς ἀγαθοί, 82, 1. 

καὶ τῷ μὲν αἰσχύνονται, ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ἀγάλλονται. 

These words have been translated, 1) ‘men like better to be 
called clever when they are rogues than simple when they are good.’ 
But this meaning of ῥᾷον with a passive verb cannot be maintained, 
we can say ῥᾷον καλοῦσε in the active, ‘they more gladly call,’ but 
not ‘are more gladly called,’ ῥᾷον κέκληνται, which could only mean 
2)* ‘they are more easily called.’ 

τῷ μέν---τῷ δέ, either 1)* ‘ goodness,’ and ‘cleverness,’ or 2) com- 
bining the two ideas dpabeis—dyabol and δεξιοί----κακοῦργοι, ‘ they 
are ashamed of simple goodness but glory in clever dishonesty.’ 

VOL. I. P 


82. 8. 


82. 8. 


83. 2. 


210 THUCYDIDES. 


οἱ yap ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι mpooravres μετὰ ὀνόματος ἑκάτεροι εὐπρεποῦς, 
πλήθους τε ἰσονομίας πολιτικῆς καὶ ἀριστοκρατίας σώφρονος προτιμήσει, 
τὰ μὲν κοινὰ λόγῳ θεραπεύοντες ἀἄθλα ἐποιοῦντο κιτ,λ. 

The dative προτιμήσει is a variation of the genitive with μετά 
in the preceding clause, intended to support πλήθους τε... σώφρονος, 
which is too remote to be governed by the preposition. 


παντὶ δὲ τρόπῳ ἀγωνιζόμενοι ἀλλήλων περιγίγνεσθαι ἐτόλμησάν τε τὰ 
δεινότατα ἐπεξήεσάν τε τὰς τιμωρίας ἔτι μείζους, οὐ μέχρι τοῦ δικαίου καὶ 
τῇ πόλει ξυμφόρου προτιθέντες, ἐς δὲ τὸ ἑκατέροις που ἀεὶ ἡδονὴν ἔχον 
ὁρίζοντες. 

‘And they went still further in their revenges.’ μείζους expresses 
the result of ἐπεξήεσαν. The somewhat feeble construction of τὰς 
τιμωρίας with ἐπεξήεσαν (cp. iii. 108 init. of Μεσσήνιοι... τὸ πολὺ τοῦ 
ὄργου ἐξῆλθον), is supported by the words οὐ μέχρι. . . προτιθέντες. 

προτιθέντες, the more difficult reading, has also in this passage 
better authority than προστιθέντες, ‘ inflicting ;’ προτιθέντες may 
mean 1) ‘ fixing beforehand,’ i.e. imposing. od negatives προτιθέντες 
as well as μέχρι τοῦ δικαίου κιτλ. For the partisans whom Thu- 
cydides is describing did not ‘fix beforehand,’ or ‘ enact’ punish- 
ments by law at all, and therefore could not be said to ‘enact’ 
their revenges in disregard of justice. Some such idea as ζημίας 
must be supplied from τιμωρίας. 

Or 2)* προτιθέντες may be taken in a more general sense, 
‘proposing no definite limits of justice or expediency to their 
revenges.’ 


ov yap ἦν ὁ διαλύσων οὔτε λόγος ἐχυρὸς οὔτε ὅρκος φοβερός, κρείσσους 
δὲ ὄντες ἅπαντες λογισμῷ ἐς τὸ ἀνέλπιστον τοῦ βεβαίου, μὴ παθεῖν 
μᾶλλον προεσκόπουν ἣ πιστεῦσαι ἐδύναντο. 

κρείσσους may mean either 1) ‘they were strong rather, i.e. 
‘instead of trusting oaths and promises they were strong in de- 
spair ;’ or 2)* ‘they were strong in despair rather than in anything 
else.’ ‘The thoughts of all men irresistibly tended to despair of 
security. λογισμῷ, dative of manner after κρείσσους, ‘ strong in their 
calculations.’ Or 3) κρείσσους ὄντες may be taken in a different sense, 
and λογισμῷ may be joined with προεσκόπουν. ‘All men; when 


NOTES, BOOK 771). 211 


Superior in power, by consideration of the hopelessness of security, 83. 2. 
Were led to provide for their own safety, instead of being able to 
rust others. Or 4) τοῦ βεβαίου, ἣ τῷ βεβαίῳ, may be taken after 
“peooovs: ‘all men having regard to the uncertain event, found 
More strength in making calculations than in securities such as 
©aths and promises’ (Stahl, Classen). But the force of the words 
18 thus weakened, and the construction of the genitive, though not 
Ungrammatical, is unnatural. ¢és=either 1) ‘in view of, or 2) ‘in 
Teference to,’ or 3) carries out the idea of motion contained in 
“ραξσ σους ὄντες λογισμῷ, ‘inclining to.’ 


Of δὲ καταφρονοῦντες κἂν προαισθέσθαι «.1.d. 
3: ρβεκαισθέσθαι is governed by the idea of νομίζοντες or ἡγούμενοι 
latent in καταφρονοῦντες, ‘thinking in their arrogance that they would 


PET Ce jive in time.’ 


“the genuineness of c. 84 has been denied by the Scholiast, 84. 1. 
@Facl oubted by several modern scholars; among them by Bekker, 
POppo, Classen. Dr. Amold in his first edition, vol. i. p. 613, 
WA of opinion that there was ‘no other Greek writer at once so 
SOc, so wise, and so eloquent as to have been capable of being 
SS = vunthor’ But in the second edition, while continuing to maintain 
that the thought is quite worthy of Thucydides, he is induced by 

<= authority of the Scholiast, ‘whose judgment in such matters 
233 ~wrell as that of other scholiasts he has learned to value more 
AAC more highly,’ to deny the genuineness of this chapter, which 

Row appears to him ‘affected and caricatured in style, probably 
the ‘work of some student of Thucydides living at Constantinople 
ἄτα Cristian times,’ mt 

Xt is argued on the one hand, 
ἃ Ὺ That Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Thuc. Hist. Jud. 28-33, 
‘wing commented on c. 82 down to the words ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ἀγάλ- 
§ 7, and having made a transcript of the rest of c. 82 and of 
. $3, there stops. But Dionysius likewise omits to comment 
"E><>n a considerable section of c. 82. δῇ 1, 2, καὶ ἐν μὲν εἰρήνῃ... 
ἂς ὀργὰς τῶν πολλῶν ὁμοιοῖ, besides part of ὃ 4, τὸ δ᾽ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ 
PBpis μοίρᾳ προσετέθη, and of δὲ 6, 7, καὶ τὰς ἐς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς... μὴ 
τρβααωκθεῖν, and having made a transcript of a long passage may not 

P 2 


83. 4. 


THUCYDIDES. 


ava wiwugnt it worth while to complete the quotation. The words 

‘s valicn “Ie introduces the citation are as follows, θήσω δὲ καὶ τὰ 
cas, dé ssay ἔτε λέξιν ἐμαυτοῦ προστιθείς. No promise is here given 
‘tae te will write out the whole passage. ; 

+, Vhat the Scholiast rejected the passage (τὰ ὠβελισμένα ovden 
wy «ιξηγητῶν ἔδοξε Θουκυδίδου εἶναι, ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τῷ τύπῳ τῆς 
Pavers καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι πολὺν ἐμφαίνοντα τὸν νεωτερισμόν). But it 
‘3 unukely that he has preserved any ancient tradition. This will 
sgvun_ the more improbable when we consider that c. 84 is con- 
taitied in every extant MS. And the reason given by him for the 
rejection of the passage by himself and others is merely the 
odacurity or enigmatical character of the style, which Dionysius, 
teguiding such obscurity as characteristic of Thucydides, attributes 
«ually to the whole description of revolutionary Hellas, as well 
as tu many other passages. 

‘rhis argument is one of which we are at least as well able to judge 
aa the Scholiast himself, and the obscurity of the 84th chapter of 
ttuvk ILD is not a strong ground for doubting that it was written 
ty the author of the preceding eighty-second and eighty-third 
chapters, and of the Melian Controversy; of the Introduction 
i. 1-2, of passages like the beginning of iii. 68, and part of 
vii. &Y, etc. 

Wu the other side it may be observed that, 

1) ‘I'he precise coincidence of the supposed spurious passage 
with our chapter 84, considering that the division into chapters 
wae unknown to Thucydides, is very improbable. If 84 is an 
νει, We May as well assume at once that the whole of 82, 83, 
aw also inserted by a later hand. 

9) ‘I'he interpolation of a long paragraph in any writer of the 
auv of ‘Thucydides, or Herodotus, or Xenophon, would be without 
yatallel ; and no motive for it can be imagined in this passage. 

1) Ifthe complexity of the language seems to be a caricature 
wt ‘I'hucydides, it is more probable that he should have been 
cvaggerating his own style than that a later writer should have 
elaborated so curious a forgery. 

4) ‘The thought though obscure and involved is weighty and 


sotmprohensive. And the words have some latent or ‘ undesigned’ 


NOTES, BOOK 751. 213 


<<>> Aancidences with the language and thought of Thucydides, which 84. τ. 
Sen to lie out of the range of the forger’s art. Compare ὃ 3, 
Sw οἷσί τε τοὺς κοινοὺς περὶ τῶν τοιούτων of ἄνθρωποι νόμους... ἐν ἄλλων 
© δ αὶ υρίαις προκαταλύειν, with v. 90, 7 μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν γε, χρήσιμον... μὴ 
πὰ -ν λύειν ὑμᾶς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν. The same remark applies to the 
<> E=nening words of the 84th chapter, ἐν οὖν τῇ Κερκύρᾳ τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν 
P= word phon, compared with the concluding words of 81, διότε ἐν 
“Ss πρώτη ἐγένετο, and with τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντά που κιτιλ. (82. 3), ἃ 
=A mnilarity probably too ingenious for a forger. A fainter re- Ὁ 
S<=mblance is found in 81. 4, ἀπέθανον δέ τινες καὶ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἕνεκα 
Hem! ἄλλοι χρημάτων σφίσιν ὀφειλομένων ὑπὸ τῶν λαβόντων, compared with 
#-maiiora δ᾽ ἂν διὰ πάθους ἐπιθυμοῦντες τὰ τῶν πέλας ἔχειν. But this 
=<. rgument, though an element in arriving at a conclusion, is not 
ἝΞ qual in strength to the preceding. 
Nothing is said in the above criticism of differences in the use 
<>f words or constructions, because such arguments are too un- 
“<~ertain to have much weight on either side of the question. There 
ἃ 5 no word or construction which we can affirm positively not to 
Woelong to the age of Thucydides. And the very small amount 
«Οἱ Greek prose writing which existed in that age and is now 
““=xtant, renders the determination of such questions generally 
impossible, especially as the Greek language was then still ‘ fusile,’ 
=and the meaning of words was rapidly changing. 
We infer therefore without any doubt that chap. 84 is the 
“writing of Thucydides. 


ἐν & οὖν τῇ Κερκύρᾳ τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν προετολμήθη, καὶ ὁπόσα ὕβρει 84. 1. 
μὲν ἀρχόμενοι τὸ πλέον ἣ σωφροσύνῃ ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν τιμωρίαν παρασχόντων οἱ 
ἀνταμυνόμενοι δράσειαν,͵ πενίας δὲ τῆς εἰωθυίας ἀπαλλαξείοντές τινες, 
μάλιστα δ᾽ ἂν διὰ πάθους ἐπιθυμοῦντες τὰ τῶν πέλας ἔχειν, παρὰ δίκην 
γιγνώσκοιεν, of τε μὴ ἐπὶ πλεονεξίᾳ, ἀπὸ ἴσου δὲ μάλιστα ἐπιόντες, 
ἀπαιδευσίᾳ ὀργῆς πλεῖστον ἐκφέρόμενοι, ὠμῶς καὶ ἀπαραιτήτως ἐπέλθοιεν. 

τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν... καὶ ὁπόσαυ The long period with its several 
members, ὁπόσα δράσειαν----γιγνώσκοιεν.----ἐπέλθοιεν, is an explanation 
of ra πολλά. The main verb throughout is προετολμήθη. καὶ ὅπωσα 
κτλ, particularizes the general statement which has preceded, 
‘both what men would be likely to do from desire of revenge, 


84. 1. 


214 THUCYDIDES. 


and what from impatience of poverty, and what from party spirit.’ 
But in the subsequent words the construction with μέν and δέ 
takes the place of καί, which should have followed, an antithesis 
being introduced between those who are stimulated by revenge 
only, and those who act under the pressure of poverty. 

1)* The participles express what actually did take place, to 
which the verbs in the optative add the notion of what was 
likely to have taken place in consequence, and in fact did take 
place. This sense of the optative is, or arises out of, that of 
indefinite recurrence in past time, ‘and all that men would naturally 
have done who—,’ lit. ‘did from time to time who—.’ Cp. vii. 71 
med. ἦν re ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ στρατεύματι τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων... πάντα ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦσαι, 
ὀλοφυρμός, βοή, νικῶντες, κρατούμενοι, ἄλλα ὅσα ἐν μεγάλῳ κινδύνῳ μέγα 
στ ἐδον πολνειδῆ ἀναγκάζοιτο φθέγγεσθαι. 

dy in the second clause, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἂν διὰ πάθους ἐπιθυμοῦντες τὰ 
τῶν πέλας ἔχειν, παρὰ δίκην γιγνώσκοιεν, probably goes with the participle 
and not with γιγνώσκοιεν, because no ἄν is used with the correspond- 
ing finite verbs. ‘The dishonest designs of those who wished to 
be relieved of their poverty, and who would be above all men 
passionately covetous of their neighbours’ goods.’ 

2) But it is possible to take ἄν with γιγνώσκοιεν and to supply it 
with δράσειαν, ἐπέλθοιεν, in which case the explanation of the opta- 
tive given under 1) is unnecessary. 

διὰ πάθους. 1) ‘passionately,’ or ‘in their excitement.’ Cp. 
τὸ ἐρωτικὸν πάθος in Plato, Phaedr. 265 B., and Aristot. Rhet. i. 2. 5, 
διὰ δὲ τῶν ἀκροατῶν, ὅταν εἰς πάθος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου προαχθῶσι. These 
examples are sufficiently near to justify the somewhat rare sense 
assigned to πάθος in this passage, which is probably an anticipa- 
tion of the more abstract uses prevailing later. 2) It is also pos- 
sible that the word may be used in the more common sense of 
‘suffering,’ i.e. 4) ‘in their suffering state,’ an expansion of the 
idea contained in πενίας εἰωθυίας ; or 5) “desiring to have their neigh- 
bours’ goods, all the more because they inflicted suffering,’ i. e. they 
enjoyed their gains most when ‘something had happened to’ the 
previous possessors. 

That the savage Corcyraeans were not insensible to the need of 
unity among themselves is shown by an inscription found at Dodona 


NOTES, BOOK 77. 215 


(date uncertain), in which they ask ‘to whom of Gods or heroes 84. 1. 
they should sacrifice and pray’ in order to attain it,— 
θεὸν τ[ύ]χαν ἀγαθὰν 

ἐπ .] κοινώντᾳ τοὶ K[o]pxupa[ios τῷ Δὲ τῷ 

Νάφ καὶ τᾷ Δ[ε]ώνᾳ τίνε xd [θεῶν ἢ] 

ἡρώων θύον[τ]ες καὶ εὐχόμενοι] 

ὁμονοοῖεν ἐπ]} τὠγαθόν. 
(ἐπικοινώντᾳ = ἐπικοινοῦνται, ‘communicate with,’ or ‘make inquiry of ;’ 
wig =—vaiy.) M. Carapanos, ‘Dodone,’ i. p. 72; Hellenica, p. 443. 


οἱ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν Κερκυραῖοι τοιαύταις ὀργαῖς ταῖς πρώταις 85. 1. 
ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐχρήσαντο. 

ταῖς πρώταις. Thucydides seems here to return to the words at the 
commencement of the description, διότι ἐν τοῖς πρώτη ἐγένετο: see 
note on iii. 81. 6. 


ἡ θάλασσα ἐπανελθοῦσα ἀπὸ τῆς τότε οὔσης γῆς Kal κυματωθεῖσα ἐπῆλθε 89. 2. 
τῆς πόλεως μέρος τι. 

The MSS. all read ἐπελθοῦσα, which, if genuine, must be taken 
in the sense of advancing, i.e. retiring from the shore, towards 
the mountain wave which afterwards broke and inundated the 
city. But the harshness of this explanation, the tautology of 
ἐπελθοῦσα and ἐπῆλθε, and the use of the word ἐπαναχώρησις in the 
description of the corresponding phenomenon at Peparethus, 
lead to the conclusion that ἐπανελθοῦσα is the true reading. Cp. 
ἀποστέλλειν, ὃ 5. The natural event seems to have been understood 
by Thucydides as follows: When the earthquake occurred the 
land rose near the shore; the waves became heaped up for a 
moment, and then returned, but so as to form permanently a new 
coast line. A similar disturbance occurred at Peparethus, but with 
a difference, the sea retired, but did not advance beyond its old 
boundary. The same phenomena have been observed to attend 
earthquakes in later times. See Darwin, Naturalist’s Voyage, ch. 
xiv; Lyell’s Geology, vol. ii. ch. xxx. 


αἴτιον δ᾽ ἔγωγε νομίζω τοῦ τοιούτου, ἦ ἰσχυρότατος ὁ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο, 89. 5. 
κατὰ τοῦτο ἀποστέλλειν τε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἐξαπίνης πάλιν ἐπισπωμένην 
βιαιότερον τὴν ἐπίκλυσιν ποιεῖν. 


206 THUCYDIDES. 


81. 6. in Heraclides Ponticus of the cruelties committed by contending 
factions at Miletus (Athenaeus, xii. p. 523), probably relate to 
that earlier time of civil strife which is described by Herodotus, 
v. 28. 

But none of these revolutions were attended, as far as we know, 
with any special circumstances of cruelty or with the extirpation of 
the opposite party, except those at Argos (cp. Pausanias, ii. 20, 
Diod. xii. 80) and at Samos. It may be observed, however, that 
Thucydides appears in his account of the στάσις at Megara to refer 
back to his general description of στάσεις. He thus leaves the 
impression that he here means no more than actually occurred at 
Megara. Cp. the language which he uses iv. 74, ὁρκώσαντες πίστεσι 
μεγάλαις μηδὲν μνησικακήσειν ... καὶ τούτων πέρι ἀναγκάσαντες τὸν δῆμον 
ψῆφον φανερὰν διενεγκεῖν, ὡς κατεγνώσθησαν, ἔκτειναν, With iii, 82 med. καὶ 
ὅρκοι εἴ που dpa γένοιντο ξυναλλαγῆς, 83 init. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὁ διαλύσων οὔτε 
λόγος ἐχυρὸς οὔτε ὅρκος φοβερός, 82 fin. μετὰ ψήφου ἀδίκου καταγνώσεως. 
There is no trace in Aristotle’s account of revolutions in Greek 
states that exaggerated cruelty generally prevailed. 

We can only reply to the difficulty thus raised that Thucydides 
may have been led away by a real sense of the political evils of 
party, may we say also by a love of rhetoric which for once is too 
strong for him? The picture is aggravated by the horror of 
anarchy in the writer’s mind. In this passage, and perhaps in this 
passage only, he has forgotten the character of a critical historian. 
But it may be suggested that he is writing under the impression 
created by the tyranny of the Thirty and the revolutions in the 
islands, which were abetted or encouraged by Lysander. Through- 
out the Athenian empire, after the fall of the city, the miseries of 
the allies must have been great, and we find Lysander playing 
much the same part in them which is attributed to the Athenian 
generals at Corcyra (Plut. Lys. xiii), οὔτε yap ἀριστίνδην οὔτε πλου- 
τίνδην ἀπεδείκνυε τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ἀλλ᾽ ératpeiais καὶ ξενίαις χαριζόμενος τὰ 
πράγματα καὶ κυρίους ποιῶν τιμῆς τε καὶ κολάσεως, πολλαῖς δὲ παραγενό- 
μενος αὐτὸς σφαγαῖς καὶ συνεκβάλλων τοὺς τῶν φίλων ἐχθροὺς οὐκ ἐπιεικὲς 
ἐδίδου τοῖς Ἕλλησι δεῖγμα τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων ἀρχῆς. We should probably 
understand this and some other passages of Thucydides better 
(cp. notes on ii. 65) had he lived to complete the whole work. 


NOTES, BOOK 111. 207 


“<r Thucydides may have been silent respecting other atrocities 81. 6. 
> <== 2086 it did not come within his general plan to dwell further on 
“BA “ἘΞ details of Greek revolutions. Something may be allowed for 
~ ignorance of the facts. Scenes like those which occurred at 
~ ““——=mrcyra may have been enacted elsewhere, and no record of them 
ὅν =ay have been preserved. Nameless cruelty, like nameless virtue, 
“ =="a_ 5 often been hidden from the eye of posterity. 


ἐπεὶ ὕστερόν ye καὶ πᾶν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τὸ “Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκινήθη, διαφορῶν 88. I. 
ΞΕ ὃν ἑκασταχοῦ τοῖς τε τῶν δήμων προστάταις τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἐπάγεσθαι 
= <n} τοῖς ὀλίγοις τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ ἐν μὲν εἰρήνῃ οὐκ ἂν ἐχόντων πρό- 
Sn 0, οὐδ᾽ ἑτοίμων παρακαλεῖν αὐτούς᾽ πολεμουμένων δὲ καὶ ξυμμαχίας 

SE δα ἑκατέροις τῇ τῶν ἐναντίων κακώσει καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ 

ἜΣ, οσποιήσει ῥᾳδίως at ἐπαγωγαὶ τοῖς νεωτερίζειν τι βουλομένοις ἐπορί- 

«ζοντο. | 

The infinitive ἐπάγεσθαι is governed by the idea of an object 

contained partly in ἐκινήθη, partly in διαφορῶν. Notwithstanding 

Amold’s argument from usage to the contrary, some sense of the 

verb διαφέρειν probably enters into the substantive διαφορά, as into 

the adjective διάφορος in i. 68 init. ὡς ἕνεκεν τῶν αὐτοῖς ἰδίᾳ διαφόρων 

λέγουσι, and in iv. 87 init. οὕτω πολλὴν περιωπὴν τῶν ἡμῖν ἐς τὰ μέγιστα 
διαφόρων ποιούμεθα. 

ξυμμαχίας . .. ἐπορίζοντο. Again the construction is uncertain. 

ξυμμαχίας is either 1)* a genitive absolute with which some verb 
such as ὑπαρχούσης is to be supplied from the previous sentence— 
cp. διαφορῶν οὐσῶν above: or 2) the genitive after al ἐπαγωγαί, 
being the emphatic word, and therefore placed at the beginning 
of the sentence. ‘When they were at war, then (xat) an alliance 
was readily introduced.’ 

πολεμουμένων corresponds to ἐν μὲν εἰρήνῃ. But for the genitive 

absolute which should have followed, answering to the clause οὐκ 
dy ἐχόντων... οὐδὲ ἑτοίμων, the finite verb ἐπορίζοντο has been sub- 
stituted. 


καὶ ἐπέπεσε πολλὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ κατὰ στάσιν ταῖς πόλεσι, γιγνόμενα §3, 2, 
μὲν καὶ ἀεὶ ἐσόμενα ἕως ἂν ἡ αὐτὴ φύσις ἀνθρώπων 1}, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ 
ἡσυχαΐτερα καὶ τοῖς εἴδεσι διηλλαγμένα, ὡς ἂν ἕκασται al μεταβολαὶ τῶν 


ξυντυχιῖ » ἐφις τῶνται. 


82. 3. 


82. 4. 


82, 4. 


208 THUCYDIDES. 


μᾶλλονΞΞ 1) μᾶλλον γιγνόμενα, Or 2) μᾶλλον χαλεπά. In cc. 82-84 
Thucydides is describing the features of revolution not in Corcyra 
only, but in Hellenic states generally, and the whole passage is 
one of those digressions in which Thucydides sometimes indulges, 
e. g. the digression about Pausanias and Themistocles, about Teres 
and Tereus, about the fall of the Pisistratidae, etc. It may have 
been added after the fall of Athens. The first words, καὶ ἐπέπεσε 
xr.A., are a resumption of ἐπεὶ ὕστερόν ye x1.d., at the beginning 
of the chapter, which prepare the way for the more general con- 
sideration of the subject. 


ἐστασίαζέ τε οὖν τὰ τῶν πόλεων, καὶ τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντα wou πύστει τῶν 
προγενομένων πολὺ ἐπέφερε τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ καινυῦσθαι τὰς διανοίας 
τῶν τ᾽ ἐπιχειρήσεων περιτεχνήσει καὶ τῶν τιμωριῶν ἀτοπίᾳ. 

τὰ τῶν πόλεων is ἃ periphrasis for αἱ πόλεις (as τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντα for 
αἱ ἐφυστερίζουσαι), but has a somewhat more general meaning, 
‘everything about the cities was in a state of revolution.’ 

πύστει τῶν προγενομένων x.r.d., lit. ‘by reason of hearing what had 
been done before greatly exaggerated the extravagance of the 
revolutionary temper.’ In a certain sense the report of what had 
been done before might be called the cause of later excesses, for 
it suggested possibilities of still greater atrocities. If succeeding 
generations had never known the cruelties which had been com- 
mitted by their predecessors, they could not have consciously 
exceeded them. 


καὶ τὴν εἰωθυῖαν ἀξίωσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐς τὰ ἔργα ἀντήλλαξαν τῇ 
δικαιώσει. 

ἀξίωσις =‘ value,’ or gencrally received meaning. ἐς τὰ ἔργα goes 
with ἀξίωσιν. τῇ δικαιώσει 1), ‘in their estimate,’ scil. of men’s con- 
duct ; or 2)*, ‘ by their thinking fit,’ i.e. ‘as they thought fit.’ 


τὸ δ᾽ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ ἀνδρὸς μοίρᾳ προσετέθη, ἀσφάλεια δὲ τὸ ἐπιβου- 
λεύσασθαι͵ ἀποτροπῆς πρόφασις εὔλογος. 

ἀσφάλεια δὲ τὸ ἐπιβονλεύσασθαι, the reading of nearly all the MSS., 

is not indefensible. Either 1) τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι may be an epexe- 

~~ after ἀσφάλεια, ‘security,’ i.e. ‘deliberation,’ a possible 


NOTES, BOOK 111. 209 


x. 

m esa miing of ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι, or 2) τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι may be taken 82. 4. - 
ἦι ‘@& k-e more common sense of‘ conspiring,’ as the so-called ‘acc. 
of x2 <ference, (cp. note on ii. 87. 1) after dopdAeca,=‘caution in con- 
sp Rx ung.’ But the loose construction of τὸ ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι with the 
si ποκα le substantive is very harsh. 

JE" or the dative ἀσφαλείᾳ (one bad MS. and Poppo) cp. iii. 56 fin. 

oo ,,...2} τὰ ξύμφορα πρὸς τὴν ἔφοδον αὑτοῖς ἀσφαλείᾳ πράσσοντες. 


ard γὸρ μετὰ τῶν κειμένων νόμων ὠφελίας αἱ τοιαῦται ξύνοδοι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ 88. 6. 
τ «ὦ τῷ «- καθεστῶτας πλεονεξίᾳ. 
τ ) ὠφελίας may depend on τῶν νόμων, ‘ for such combinations are 
Ἄλεος formed in accordance with established laws which have for 
“heir Object the public good ;’ or 2) τῶν νόμων may follow ὠφελίας, 
re not based on the public good of established laws;’ i.e. like 
“Stablished laws on the public good; or 3)* ὠφελίας may be taken 
"Sa Predicate with ξύνοδοι, ‘such combinations are not formed for 
he Public good.’ Thus the antithesis to πλεονεξίᾳ becomes more 
POin ted 


Tee τι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων καλῶς λεγόμενα ἐνεδέχοντο ἔργων φυλακῇ, εἰ 82. 7. 
"POE decry, καὶ ob γενναιότητι. 
ather 1)* by watching their enemies’ actions, or 2) by watch- 
<=ss in their own actions, i.e. by increased precautions. The 
Atte, gives the better opposition, and is confirmed by ἀπὸ τῶν 


Platt τῆς ἐπιμελείας, ‘by the vigilance of your administration,’ 
AL 


faly, 


- 6 fin. εἰ προὔχοιεν, scil. of ἐναντίοι. 


Bor δ᾽ of πολλοὶ κακοῦργοι ὄντες δεξιοὶ κέκληνται ἣ ἀμαθεῖς ἀγαθοί, 82. 7. 
κοὶ τῷ μὲν αἰσχύνονται, ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ἀγάλλονται. 
These words have been translated, 1) ‘men like better to be 
Called clever when they are rogues than simple when they are good.’ 
Bat this meaning of ῥᾷον with a passive verb cannot be maintained, 
We can say ῥᾷον καλοῦσε in the active, ‘they more gladly call,’ but 
hot ‘are more gladly called,’ ῥᾷον κέκληνται, which could only mean 
2)* ‘they are more easily called.’ 
τῷ pév—re δέ, either 1)* ‘ goodness,’ and ‘cleverness,’ or 2) com- 
bining the two ideas ἀμαθεῖς---ἀγαθοί and δεξιοί----κακοῦργοι, ‘ they 
Ι are ashamed of simple goodness but glory in clever dishonesty.’ 
VOL. It. P 


82. 8. 


82. 8. 


82. 2. 


210 THUCYDIDES. 


οἱ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι προστάντες μετὰ ὀνόματος ἑκάτεροι εὐπρεποῦς, 
πλήθους τε ἰσονομίας πολιτικῆς καὶ ἀριστοκρατίας σώφρονος προτιμήσει, 
τὰ μὲν κοινὰ λόγῳ θεραπεύοντες ἀθλα ἐποιοῦντο κιτιλ. 

The dative προτιμήσει is a variation of the genitive with pera 
in the preceding clause, intended to support πλήθους τε... σώφρονος, 
which is too remote to be governed by the preposition. 


παντὶ δὲ τρόπῳ ἀγωνιζόμενοι ἀλλήλων περιγίγνεσθαι ἐτόλμησάν τε τὰ 
δεινότατα ἐπεξήεσάν τε τὰς τιμωρίας ἔτι μείζους, οὐ μέχρι τοῦ δικαίου καὶ 
τῇ πόλει ξυμφόρου προτιθέντες, ἐς δὲ τὸ ἑκατέροις πον ἀεὶ ἡδονὴν ἔχαν 
ὁρίζοντες. 

‘And they went still further in their revenges.’ μείζους expresses 
the result of ἐπεξήεσαν. The somewhat feeble construction of τὰς 
τιμωρίας with ἐπεξήεσαν (cp. iii. 108 init. of Μεσσήνιοι... τὸ πολὺ τοῦ 
ἔργου ἐξῆλθον), is supported by the words οὐ μέχρε.. . . προτιθέντες. 

προτιθέντες, the more difficult reading, has also in this passage 
better authority than προστιθέντες, ‘ inflicting ;’ προτιθέντες may 
mean 1) ‘fixing beforehand,’ i.e. imposing. οὐ negatives προτιθέντες 
as well as μέχρι τοῦ δικαίου «.r.A. For the partisans whom Thu- 
cydides is describing did not ‘fix beforehand,’ or ‘ enact’ punish- 
ments by law at all, and therefore could not be said to ‘enact’ 
their revenges in disregard of justice. Some such idea as ζημίας 
must be supplied from τιμωρίας. 

Or 2)* προτιθέντες may be taken in a more general sense, 
‘proposing no definite limits of justice or expediency to their 
revenges. 


ov γὰρ ἦν ὁ διαλύσων οὔτε λόγος ἐχυρὸς οὔτε ὅρκος φοβερός, κρείσσους 
δὲ ὄντες ἅπαντες λογισμῷ ἐς τὸ ἀνέλπιστον τοῦ βεβαίου, μὴ παθεῖν 
μᾶλλον προεσκόπουν ἣ πιστεῦσαι ἐδύναντο. 

κρείσσους May mean either 1) ‘they were strong rather,’ i.e. 
‘instead of trusting oaths and promises they were strong in de- 
spair ;’ or 2)* ‘they were strong in despair rather than in anything 
else. ‘The thoughts of all men irresistibly tended to despair of 
security.’ λογισμῷ, dative of manner after κρείσσους, ‘ strong in their 
calculations.’ Or 3) κρείσσους ὄντες may be taken in a different sense, 
and λογισμῷ may be joined with προεσκόπουν. ‘All men; when 


NOTES, BOOK III. 211 


$11 (> —"0r in power, by consideration of the hopelessness of security, 83. 2. 
wr ex © led to provide for their own safety, instead of being able to 
ἔχ τα --- others. Or 4) τοῦ ReBSaiov,=4 τῷ βεβαίῳ, may be taken after 
gee ὅσσους: ‘all men having regard to the uncertain event, found 
mra.<>re strength in making calculations than in securities such as 
>=a_t Fas and promises’ (Stahl, Classen). But the force of the words 

Rss) = 6th weakened, and the construction of the genitive, though not 

ἌΣ τ gs Tammatical, is unnatural. ¢s=either 1) ‘in view of,’ or 2) ‘in 

τ ©fexrence to,’ or 3) carries out the idea of motion contained in 

Me gprecovors ὄντες λογισμῷ, ‘ inclining to.’ 


οὗ δὲ καταφρονοῦντες κἂν προαισθέσθαι «.1.d. 89. 4. 

Ξε ροαισθέσθαι is governed by the idea of νομίζοντες or ἡγούμενοι 
latent in καταφρονοῦντες, ‘thinking in their arrogance that they would 
Perceive in time.’ 


“he genuineness of c. 84 has been denied by the Scholiast, 84. 1. 
λα oubted by several modern scholars; among them by Bekker, 
Poppo, Classen. Dr. Arnold in his first edition, vol. i. p. 613, 
was of opinion that there was ‘no other Greek writer at once so 

SOO, 50 wise, and so eloquent as to have been capable of being 
SS aarathor.” But in the second edition, while continuing to maintain 
that the thought is quite worthy of Thucydides, he is induced by 

= authority of the Scholiast, ‘whose judgment in such matters 

“we ell as that of other scholiasts he has learned to value more 

ATACA more highly,’ to deny the genuineness of this chapter, which 
hed appears to him ‘affected and caricatured in style, probably 


in. ‘work of some student of Thucydides living at Constantinople 
<“hristian times.’ 

Xtis argued on the one hand, 

«) That Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Thuc. Hist. Jud. 28-33, 
having commented on c. 82 down to the words ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ἀγάλ- 
Rom δ 7, and having made a transcript of the rest of c. 82 and of 

“- 83, there stops. But Dionysius likewise omits to comment 
“Bon a considerable section of c. 82. δὲ 1, 2, καὶ ἐν μὲν εἰρήνῃ... 
τὰς ὀργὰς τῶν πολλῶν ὁμοιοῖ, besides part of ὃ 4, τὸ δ᾽ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ 

Gndois μοίρᾳ προσετέθη, and of §§ 6, 7, καὶ τὰς ἐς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς... μὴ 
Ἐροσαθεῖν, and having made a transcript of a long passage may not 
P 2 


84. 1. 


212 THUCYDIDES. 


have thought it worth while to complete the quotation. The words 
by which he introduces the citation are as follows, θήσω δὲ καὶ ra 
ἑξῆς, οὐδὲ μίαν ἔτι λέξιν ἐμαυτοῦ προστιθείς. No promise is here given 
that he will write out the whole passage. ; 

2) That the Scholiast rejected the passage (τὰ ὠβελισμένα οὐδένε 
τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἔδοξε Θουκυδίδου εἶναι. ἀσαφῆ γὰρ καὶ τῷ τύπῳ τῆς 
ἑρμηνείας καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι πολὺν ἐμφαίνοντα τὸν νεωτερισμόν). But it 
is unlikely that he has preserved any ancient tradition. This will 
seem the more improbable when we consider that c. 84 is con- 
tained in every extant MS. And the reason given by him for the 
rejection of the passage by himself and others is merely the 
obscurity or enigmatical character of the style, which Dionysius, 
regarding such obscurity as characteristic of Thucydides, attributes 
equally to the whole description of revolutionary Hellas, as well 
as to many other passages. 

This argument is one of which we are at least as well able to judge 
as the Scholiast himself, and the obscurity of the 84th chapter of 
Book III is not a strong ground for doubting that it was written 
by the author of the preceding eighty-second and eighty-third 
chapters, and of the Melian Controversy; of the Introduction 
i, 1-22, of passages like the beginning of iii. 68, and part of 
vili. 89, etc. 

On the other side it may be observed that, 

1) The precise coincidence of the supposed spurious passage 
with our chapter 84, considering that the division into chapters 
was unknown to Thucydides, is very improbable. If 84 is an 
insertion, we may as well assume at once that the whole of 82, 83, 
are also inserted by a later hand. 

2) The interpolation of a long paragraph in any writer of the 
age of Thucydides, or Herodotus, or Xenophon, would be without 
parallel; and no motive for it can be imagined in this passage. 

3) If the complexity of the language seems to be a caricature 
of Thucydides, it is more probable that he should have been 
exaggerating his own style than that a later writer should have 
elaborated so curious a forgery. 

4) The thought though obscure and involved is weighty and 
comprehensive. And the words have some latent or ‘ undesigned’ 


NOTES, BOOK 777. 213 


coincidences with the language and thought of Thucydides, which 84. 1. 
seem to lie out of the range of the forger’s art. Compare § 3, 
ἀξιοῦσί τε τοὺς κοινοὺς περὶ τῶν τοιούτων of ἄνθρωποι νόμους... ἐν ἄλλων 
τιμωρίαις προκαταλύειν, with v. 90, 7 μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν γε, χρήσιμον... μὴ 
καταλύειν ὑμᾶς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν. The same remark applies to the 
opening words of the 84th chapter, ἐν οὖν τῇ Κερκύρᾳ τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν 
προετολμήθη, compared with the concluding words of 81, διότε ἐν 
τοῖς πρώτη ἐγένετο, and with τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντά mov κιτλ. (82. 3), a 
similarity probably too ingenious for a forger. A fainter re- 
semblance is found in 81. 4, ἀπέθανον δέ τινες καὶ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἕνεκα 
καὶ ἄλλοι χρημάτων σφίσιν ὀφειλομένων ὑπὸ τῶν λαβόντων, compared with 
μάλιστα δ᾽ ἂν διὰ πάθους ἐπιθυμοῦντες τὰ τῶν πέλας ἔχει. But this 
argument, though an element in arriving at a conclusion, is not 
equal in strength to the preceding. 

Nothing is said in the above criticism of differences in the use 
of words or constructions, because such arguments are too un- 
certain to have much weight on either side of the question. There 
is no word or construction which we can affirm positively not to 
belong to the age of Thucydides. And the very small amount 
of Greek prose writing which existed in that age and is now 
extant, renders the determination of such questions generally 
impossible, especially as the Greek language was then still ‘ fusile,’ 
and the meaning of words was rapidly changing. 

We infer therefore without any doubt that chap. 84 is the 
writing of Thucydides. 


ἐν δ᾽ οὖν τῇ Κερκύρᾳ τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν προετολμήθη, καὶ ὁπόσα ὕβρει 84, 1. 
μὲν ἀρχόμενοι τὸ πλέον ἣ σωφροσύνῃ ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν τιμωρίαν παρασχόντων οἱ 
ἀνταμυνόμενοι δράσειαν, πενίας δὲ τῆς εἰωθυίας ἀπαλλαξείοντές τινες, 
μάλιστα δ' ἂν διὰ πάθους ἐπιθυμοῦντες τὰ τῶν πέλας ἔχειν, παρὰ δίκην 
γιγνώσκοιεν, of τε μὴ ἐπὶ πλεονεξίᾳ, ἀπὸ ἴσον δὲ μάλιστα ἐπιόντες, 
ἀπαιδευσίᾳ ὀργῆς πλεῖστον ἐκφέρόμενοι, ὠμῶς καὶ ἀπαραιτήτως ἐπέλθοιεν. 

τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν... καὶ ὁπόσαυ The long period with its several 
members, ὁπόσα δράσειαν----γιγνώσκοιεν ---ἐπέλθοιεν, is an explanation 
of τὰ πολλά. The main verb throughout is προετολμήθη. καὶ ὅπωσα 
κτλ. particularizes the general statement which has preceded, 
‘both what men would be likely to do from desire of revenge, 


84. 1. 


214 THUCYDIDES. 


and what from impatience of poverty, and what from party spirit.’ 
But in the subsequent words the construction with μέν and δέ 
takes the place of καί, which should have followed, an antithesis 
being introduced between those who are stimulated by revenge 
only, and those who act under the pressure of poverty. 

1)* The participles express what actually did take place, to 
which the verbs in the optative add the notion of what was 
likely to have taken place in consequence, and in fact did take 
place. This sense of the optative is, or arises out of, that of 
indefinite recurrence in past time, ‘and all that men would naturally 
have done who—,’ lit. ‘did from time to ttme who—.’ Cp. vii. 71 
med. ἦν re ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ στρατεύματι τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων... πάντα ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦσαι, 
ὀλοφυρμός, βοή, νικῶντες, κρατούμενοι, ἄλλα ὅσα ἐν μεγάλῳ κινδύνῳ μέγα 
στρατόπεδον πολνειδὴ ἀναγκάζοιτο φθέγγεσθαι. 

ἄν in the second clause, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἂν διὰ πάθους ἐπιθυμοῦντες τὰ 


ray πέλας ἔχειν, παρὰ δίκην γιγνώσκοιεν, probably goes with the participle 


and not with γιγνώσκοιεν, because no dy is used with the correspond- 
ing finite verbs. ‘The dishonest designs of those who wished to 
be relieved of their poverty, and who would be above all men 
passionately covetous of their neighbours’ goods,’ 

2) But it is possible to take ἄν with γιγνώσκοιεν and to supply it 
with δράσειαν, ἐπέλθοιεν, in which case the explanation of the opta- 
tive given under 1) is unnecessary. 

διὰ πάθους. 1) ‘passionately,’ or ‘in their excitement.’ Cp. 
τὸ ἐρωτικὸν πάθος in Plato, Phaedr. 265 B., and Aristot. Rhet. i. 2. 5, 
διὰ δὲ τῶν ἀκροατῶν, ὅταν eis πάθος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου προαχθῶσιν. These 
examples are sufficiently near to justify the somewhat rare sense 
assigned to πάθος in this passage, which is probably an anticipa- 
tion of the more abstract uses prevailing later. 2) It is also pos- 
sible that the word may be used in the more common sense of 
‘suffering,’ i.e. 4) ‘in their suffering state,’ an expansion of the 
idea contained in πενίας εἰωθυίας ; or ὁ) “desiring to have their neigh- 
bours’ goods, all the more because they inflicted suffering,’ i.e. they 
enjoyed their gains most when ‘something had happened to’ the 
previous possessors. 

That the savage Corcyraeans were not insensible to the need of 
unity among themselves is shown by an inscription found at Dodona 


NOTES, BOOK Ii. 215 


{ cf=vte uncertain), in which they ask ‘to whom of Gods or heroes 84. 1. 
th ey should sacrifice and pray’ in order to attain it,— 
θεὸν Τ[ύΪχαν ἀγαθὰν 

ἐπ ] κοινώντᾳ τοὶ Κ[ο]ρκυρα[ῖοι τῷ δὶ τῷ 

Νάφ καὶ τᾷ Δ[ι]ώνᾳ τίνι xd [θεῶν ἢ] 

ἡρώων θύοι" τ]ες καὶ εὐχόμενοι] 

ὁμονοοῖεν ἐπ]ὶ τὠγαθόν. 
(ἐστε σε εν ἐνώντᾳ-- ἐπικοινοῦνται, ‘communicate with,’ or ‘make inquiry of ;’ 
on === mip.) M. Carapanos, ‘ Dodone,’ i. p. 72; Hellenica, p. 443. 


“ΟΣ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν Κερκυραῖοι τοιαύταις ὀργαῖς ταῖς πρώταις 85. 1. 
‘s <E Du λίλους ἐχρήσαντο. 
“eas πρώταις. Thucydides seems here to return to the words at the 


σα ἡ wencement of the description, διότι ἐν τοῖς πρώτη ἐγένετο: see 
aAot— on iii. 81. 6. 


_ DP βάλασσα ἐπανελθοῦσα ἀπὸ τῆς τότε οὔσης γῆς καὶ κυματωθεῖσα ἐπῆλθε 89. 2. 
PS -ϑλεως μέρος τι. 


: ~ Whe MSS. all read ἐπελθοῦσα, which, if genuine, must be taken 
=_ ἘΠῚ sense of advancing, i.e. retiring from the shore, towards 
the mountain wave which afterwards broke and inundated the 
by. But the harshness of this explanation, the tautology of 
Ἥτις τ ϑοῦσα and ἐπῆλθε, and the use of the word ἐπαναχώρησις in the 
‘=acription of the corresponding phenomenon at Peparethus, 
lead to the conclusion that ἐπανελθοῦσα is the true reading. Cp. 
“Ἔα στέλλειν, ὃ 5. The natural event seems to have been understood 
By Thucydides as follows: When the earthquake occurred the 
amd rose near the shore; the waves became heaped up for a 
Moment, and then returned, but so as to form permanently a new 
Coast line. A similar disturbance occurred at Peparethus, but with 
a difference, the sea retired, but did not advance beyond its old 
boundary. The same phenomena have been observed to attend 
earthquakes in later times. See Darwin, Naturalist’s Voyage, ch. 

xiv; Lyell’s Geology, vol. ii. ch. xxx. 


αἴτιον δ᾽ ἔγωγε νομίζω τοῦ τοιούτου, 7 ἰσχυρότατος ὃ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο, 89. 5. 
κατὰ τοῦτο ἀποστέλλειν τε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἐξαπίνης πάλιν ἐπισπωμένην 
βιαιότερον τὴν ἐπίκλυσιν ποιεῖν. 


89. 5. 


90. 1. 


92. 4. 


92. 5. 


216 THUCYDIDES. 


Thucydides is pointing out the connection between the earth- 
quake and the inundation. Where the earthquake was most violent, 
there the inundation was greatest. But the effect was indirect, 
being immediately caused by the recoil of the sea after the earth- 
quake was over ; hence τὴν θάλασσαν and not, as we might expect, 
τὸν σεισμόν, is the subject of ποιεῖν. ἀποστέλλειν, either act. or neut. 


τοῦ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θέρους ἐπολέμουν μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι, ὡς ἑκάστοις ξυνέβαινεν, ἐν 
τῇ Σικελίᾳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ Σικελιῶται ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους στρατεύοντες καὶ οἱ 
᾿Αθηναῖοι ξὺν τοῖς σφετέροις ξυμμάχοις᾽ ἃ δὲ λόγου μάλιστα ἄξια ἣ μετὰ 
τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἔπραξαν ἣ πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους οἱ ἀντιπολέμειοε, 
τούτων μνησθήσομαι. 

καὶ αὐτοί, καὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, are not contrasted with καὶ ἄλλοι, all 
the armies which were fighting in Sicily, but are subdivisions of 
them ; ‘many were fighting, 2) the Sicilian Greeks, δὴ) the Athe- 
nians. The general statement, καὶ ἄλλοι «.r.A., is opposed to the 
particular which follows, ἃ δὲ λόγου μάλιστα ἄξια «rd. But the 
opposition is imperfectly expressed, for the first clause speaks of 
the peoples who fought, and the second of the operations in which 
they were engaged. 


ἐπί τε yap τῇ Εὐβοίᾳ ναυτικὸν παρασκευασθῆναι ἂν ὥστ᾽ ἐκ βραχέος τὴν 
διάβασιν γίγνεσθαι, τῆς τε ἐπὶ Θράκης παρόδου χρησίμως ἕξειν. 

Thrace is here as elsewhere put for that part of Thrace in which the 
Athenian operations were carried on, generally called ra ἐπὶ Θράκης. 

Compare i. 60 fin. καὶ ἀφικνοῦνται τεσσαρακοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὕστερον ἐπὶ 
Θράκης, ἢ Ποτίδαια ἀπέστη : iv. 70 init. ἐπὶ Θράκης στρατείαν παρασκευα- 
ζόμενος : ν. 34 init. ἡκόντων αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀπὸ Θράκης μετὰ Βρασίδου 
ἐξελθόντων στρατιωτῶν : v. 35 init. τοὺς ἐπὶ Θράκης ξυμμάχους : 
med. τοὺς ἐπὶ Θράκης στρατιώτας : fin. Μεσσηνίους τε καὶ τοὺς Εἵλωτας. 
ἐξαγαγεῖν, ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτοὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Θράκης. 

τῆς παρόδου. Cp. for the use of the genitive i. 36 med. τῆς re 
yap ᾿Ιταλίας καὶ Σικελίας καλῶς παράπλου κεῖται κιτλ. πάροδος, either 1) 


simply ‘the way into Thrace,’ or 2) ‘the way past the enemy’s 
country into Thrace.’ 


πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐν Δελφοῖς τὸν θεὸν ἐπήροντο, κελεύοντος δέ, ἐξέπεμψαν 
τοὺς οἰκήτορας «.T.A. 


NOTES, BOOK ΜΠ. 217 


We may observe that in this instance the God is stated to give 
Bais sanction to an enterprise which ends in complete failure. 


νεώριά τε παρεσκευάζοντο καὶ ἤρξαντο κατὰ Θερμοπύλας κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ 

τ ἋἙ ἐνόν, ὅπως εὐφύλακτα αὐτοῖς εἴη. 
ἤρξαντο. They began the works connected with the docks at 
ermopylae, four and a half miles east of Heraclea. ὅπως εὐφύ- 
.acra εἴη, either 1) scil. τὰ νεώρια, for the better protection of the 


92. 5. 


92. 6, 


“<llocks themselves, or 2)* for the better protection of Heraclea, — 


τοῦ the road which led to it, against enemies from the south. 
αὐφύλακτα is used like πλωιμώτερα (ἐγένετο), i. 8 med. ‘that every- 
thing might be well protected.’ Compare viii. 55 med. εὐφυλακτό- 
τερα γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐγίγνετο, εἴ ποι ἀπαίροι τὸ τῶν Πελοποννησίων vaurixdy. 


αἴτιον δὲ ἦν of τε Θεσσαλοὶ ἐν δυνάμει ὄντες κιτλ. 

τέ implies a clause which is to follow. There were two causes 
which ruined Heraclea, a) the jealousy of the Thessalians, 4) the 
brutality of the Lacedaemonian governors, of te Θεσσαλοὶ καὶ ol 
ἄρχοντες. But in expressing the second reason a different con- 
struction is employed, οὐ μέντοι ἥκιστα of ἄρχοντες «.7.A. 


Δημοσθένης δ᾽ ἀναπείθεται κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον ὑπὸ Μεσσηνίων, ὡς 
καλὸν αὐτῷ στρατιᾶς τοσαύτης ξυνειλεγμένης Αἰτωλοῖς ἐπιθέσθαι, Ναυπάκτῳ 
τε πολεμίοις οὖσι, καὶ ἣν κρατήσῃ αὐτῶν, ῥᾳδίως καὶ τὸ ἄλλο ἠπειρωτικὸν τὸ 
ταύτῃ ᾿Αθηναίοις προσποιήσειν. 

See note on i. 9. 3. ὃ 6. 


χρησθὲν αὐτῷ ἐν Νεμέᾳ τοῦτο παθεῖν. 

Thucydides, curious as he always is about oracles, records 
one respecting the death of Hesiod. For the circumstances see 
Plut. Sept. Sap. Conv. 19, p. 152 C foll. (Wyttenbach, vol. i. part 
II. p. 639). : 


τῇ τύχῃ ἐλπίσας. 
Literally, ‘induced to hope by his good fortune,’ not ‘relying 
upon his good fortune.’ 


μέχρι μὲν οὖν οἱ τοξόται εἶχόν re τὰ βέλη αὐτοῖς καὶ οἷοί re ἦσαν χρῆσθαι, 
οἱ δὲ ἀντεῖχον' (τοξενόμενοι γὰρ οἱ Αἰτωλοὶ ἄνθρωποι ψιλοὶ ἀνεστέλλοντο") 


92. 2. 


94. 3. 


96. I. 


97. 2. 


218 THUCYDIDES. 


98 1. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῦ re τοξάρχου ἀποθανόντος οὗτοι διεσκεδάσθησαν, καὶ αὐτοὶ 
ἐκεκμήκεσαν καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ τῷ αὐτῷ πόνῳ ξυνεχόμενοι, οἷ τε Αἰτωλοὶ ἐνέκειντο 
καὶ ἐσηκόντιζον κιτιλ. 

αὐτοῖς is what is called by grammarians the dativus ethicus, or 
the dativus commodi or incommodi, that is, a dative expressing not 
merely a relation but a feeling or reflection about a relation. ‘As 
long as the Athenians saw (αὐτοῖς) that the archers still had their 
arrows,’ etc. 

καί emphasizes either ἐπὶ πολύ or the whole clause which follows. 
τῷ αὐτῷ πόνῳ «.7.d., ‘harassed for a long time by the same ever 
continuing trouble.’ 


98. 4. ἀπέθανον δὲ τῶν re ξυμμάχων πολλοὶ καὶ αὐτῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ὁπλῖται περὶ 
εἴκοσι μάλιστα καὶ ἑκατόν τοσοῦτοι μὲν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἡλικία ἡ αὐτή; 
οὗτοι βέλτιστοι δὴ ἄνδρες ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷδε ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αθηναίων πόλεως 
διεφθάρησαν. 

ἡλικία ἡ αὐτή, 501}. ἦν, ‘they were in the same prime of youth.’ 
It would appear from this passage that chosen battalions (βέλτεστοι) 
were sometimes formed of troops of the same age. Cp. note on 
li. 13. 6, 7. 


100. 1. τοῦ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θέρους Αἰτωλοὶ προπέμψαντες πρότερον és re Κόρινθον καὶ 
ἐς Λακεδαίμονα πρέσβεις. .. πείθουσιν ὥστε σφίσι πέμψαι στρατιὰν ἐπὶ 
Ναύπακτον διὰ τὴν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐπαγωγήν. 

προπέμψαντες πρότερον, having already or previously sent envoys, 
before the point at which the history has now arrived, and so 
before the Athenian expedition into Aetolia. ‘The Lacedae- 
monian expedition did not come of itself, but I must go back 
a little to explain why it came.’ 

διὰ τὴν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐπαγωγήν, because the Naupactians had 
invited the Athenians, iii. 94 med. 


101. 2. ξυνέπρασσον δὲ μάλιστα αὐτῷ τῶν Λοκρῶν ᾿Αμφισσῆς, διὰ τὸ τῶν 
Φωκέων ἔχθος δεδιότες. 

The Phocians, although reckoned among the allies of the Lace- 
daemonians (ii. 9 med., viii. 3 fin.), were friendly to the Athenians, 
and therefore the Amphissians, who were enemies of the Pho- 
cians, were glad to help the Peloponnesians. Cop. iii. 95 init. ἕως 


NOTES, BOOK If. 219 


sc ε-πταβαίη ἐς Φωκέας, ot προθύμως ἐδόκουν κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αθηναίων del ποτε φιλίαν 101, 2. 
«ΞΞ εαὐστρατεύειν ἣ κἂν βίᾳ προσαχθῆναι. 

It is clear from this chapter and from iii. 95 fin. that the Ozolian 
-H_ocrians generally were allies of the Athenians. Hence the Lo- 
<—rszians mentioned ii. 9 med. as members of the Lacedaemonian 
==m_lliance, must be the Opuntian and Epicnemidian Locrians only. 


ἐπί τε Μολύκριον ἐλθόντες, τὴν Κορινθίων μὲν ἀποικίαν, ᾿Αθηναίων δὲ 102. 2. 
ὩΣ πήκοον, αἱροῦσι. 

Molycrium is a second instance of a city standing to Athens δῃἂ 
“Vorinth in the same relation as Potidaea, i. 56. 


Δημοσθένης δὲ ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος (ἔτι yap ἐτύγχανεν ὧν pera τὰ ἐκ τῆς Αἰτωλίαρ 102, 3. 
“sept Ναύπακτον), προαισθόμενος τοῦ στρατοῦ καὶ δείσας περὶ αὐτῆς, ἐλθὼν 
πείθει Ἀκαρνᾶνας χαλεπῶς διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς Λευκάδος ἀναχώρησιν βοηθῆσαι 
Ναυπάκτῳ, καὶ πέμπουσι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν νεῶν χιλίους ὁπλίτας, οἱ 
ἐσελθόντες περιεποίησαν τὸ χωρίον. 

It is not likely that these words refer to Acarnanian ships. The 
fleet which Demosthenes had brought with him is spoken of as 
having returned to Athens, c. 98 fin., while Demosthenes remained 
behind in disgrace. The Corcyraean squadron had also gone home 
(c. 95 fin.) There seems to be a reference by anticipation to the 
twenty Athenian ships of which mention is made in c. 105 fin. 


δηλοῖ δὲ μάλιστα Ὅμηρος, ὅτι τοιαῦτα ἦν, ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι τοῖσδε, ἅ ἐστιν ἐκ 104, 4. 
προοιμίου ᾿Απόλλωνος. 

Wolf (Prolegomena, p. cv) considers that the so-called Homeric 
hymns were προοίμια in honour of the Gods, i.e. are made up of 
preludes, or fragments of the preludes, with which the rhapsodists 
introduced their recitations of the Homeric or other poems. Cp. 
Pindar, Nem. ii. 1-3,— 

ὅθενπερ καὶ ‘Opnpidat 
᾿ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων τὰ odd’ ἀοιδοὶ 
ἄρχονται, Διὸς ἐκ προοιμίου. 

This is very probable in itself and is confirmed by the meaning 
of the word προοίμιον, and by the concluding words of some of the 
hymns, cp. especially those of the third, ninth, and eighteenth,— 

σεῦ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀρξάμενος μεταβήσομαι ἄλλον ἐς ὕμνον" 


104. 4. 


220 THUCYDIDES. 


of the seventh — 

χαῖρε, τέκος Σεμέλης evwnidos’ οὐδέ πῃ ἔστιν 

aed γε ληθόμενον γλυκερὴν κοσμῆσαι ἀοιδήν" 
of the thirty-second,— 
χαῖρε, ἄνασσα, θεὰ λευκώλενε, Sia Σελήνη, 
πρόφρον, ἐὐπλόκαμος" σέο δ᾽ ἀρχόμενος κλέα φωτῶν 
ᾷσομαι ἡμιθέων, ὧν κλείουσ᾽ ἔργματ᾽ ἀοιδοί, 
Μουσάων θεράποντες, ἀπὸ στομάτων ἐροέντων. 

But the authority of Plutarch, by which Wolf in the Prolegomena 
supports his view, is not worth much. De Mus. 4. 6. 1132 D, 
1133 C (Wyttenbach, vol. v. part I. p. 631, 633), πεποίηται δὲ τῷ 
Τερπάνδρῳ καὶ προοίμια κιθαρῳδικὰ ἐν ἔπεσιν (in hexameter verse)... 
νόμοι γὰρ προσηγορεύθησαν, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐξῆν παραβῆναι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον νενο- 
μισμένον εἶδος τῆς τάσεως. τὰ γὰρ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ὡς βούλονταε ἀφο- 
σιωσάμενοι, ἐξέβαινον εὐθὺς ἐπί τε τὴν 'Ομήρον καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποίησιν. 
δῆλον δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι διὰ τῶν Τερπάνδρον προοιμίων. 

The lines which follow in the MSS. of Thucydides differ con- 
siderably from the text of the Homeric hymn which has come 
down to us. They may be fairly regarded as presenting a text 
prior to the Alexandrian edition, and are therefore interesting 
as showing the kind of recension to which the Homeric poems 
were subjected. We may compare the two forms. 

Hymn to Apollo, 146-150. 

As in Thucydides,— 

ἄλλοτε Δήλῳ, Φοῖβε, μάλιστά ye θυμὸν ἐτέρφθης, 
ἔνθα τοι ἕλκεχίτωνες ᾿Ιάονες ἠγερέθονται 

σὺν σφοῖσιν τεκέεσσι γυναιξί τε σὴν ἐς ἀγνιάν" 
ἔνθα σε πυγμαχίῃ [τε] καὶ ὀρχηστυῖ καὶ ἀοιδῇ 
μνησάμενοι τέρπουσιν, ὅταν καθέσωσιν ἀγῶνα. 

As in Wolf’s Homer,— 

ἀλλὰ od Δήλῳ, Φοῖβε, μάλιστ᾽ ἐπιτέρπεαι ἧτορ᾽ 
ἔνθα τοι ἑλκεχίτωνες ᾿Ιάονες ἡγερέθονται, 

σὺν σφοῖσιν τεκέεσσι καὶ aidoins ἀλόχοισιν" 

οἱ δέ σε πυγμαχίῃ τε καὶ ὀρχηθμῷ καὶ ἀοιδῇ 
μνησάμενοι τέρπουσιν, ὅτ᾽ ἂν στήσωνται ἀγῶνα. 


The other quotation contained in the chapter agrees with our 


_ NOTES, BOOK III. 221 


Present text, except in line 168, where the reading is ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀνείρηται 104. 4. 
“ξεῖνος ταλαπείριος ἐλθών. 


Olpae lay on the Ambracian gulf, at a place where remains are 105. 

ssaid to be still found, about three miles north west of the Amphilo- 
«hian Argos, which is situated in a hilly country about twenty miles 
south east of the town of Ambracia. The Peloponnesians marched 
from Proschium about thirty-five miles nearly in a straight line 
northwards. They found the country deserted by the inhabitants, 
who were for the most part allies of the Athenians, and had gone 
to protect Argos. On approaching Argos they struck into the 
Mount Thyamus, and descending by night into the plain between 
the two stations of the enemy at Argos and at Crenae, effected a 
junction with the Ambraciots at Olpae, on the other side of Argos. 
Argos is described by Thucydides (c. 105 init.) as ἐπιθαλασσία, but 
the probable site of the town is about a mile from the sea. We 
may suppose, either that ἐπιθαλασσία is used in a loose sense, or 
that an inlet which now runs up into the land near the town 
formerly extended to the town itself. See Leake, Northern Greece, 
vol. iv. p. 244 foll. 


καταλαμβάνουσιν “Odsas, τεῖχος ἐπὶ λόφου ἰσχυρὸν πρὸς τῇ θαλάσσῃ, 105. 1. 
ὅ wore ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες τειχισάμενοι κοινῷ δικαστηρίῳ ἐχρῶντο. 

κοινῷ, either ‘common to all the Acarnanians,’ or ‘common to 
the Acarnanians and Amphilochians ;’ more probably the former. 


τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες ὡς ἕκαστοι τεταγμένοι ἐπεῖχον. 107. 4. 
ἐπεῖχον, ‘were spread over,’ or ‘occupied.’ Cp. i. 48 med. τὸ δὲ 
ἄλλο αὐτοὶ ἐπεῖχον. 


ἐπαναχωροῦντες δὲ ὡς ἑώρων τὸ πλέον νενικημενον, καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ᾿Ακαρ- 108. 3. 
vaves σφίσι προσεκεῖντο, χαλεπῶς διεσώζοντο ἐς τὰς “OAmas, καὶ πολλοὶ 
ἀπέθανον αὐτῶν ἀτάκτως καὶ οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ προσπίπτοντες πλὴν Μαντινέων. 
οὗτοι δὲ μάλιστα ξυντεταγμένοι παντὸς τοῦ στρατοῦ ἀνεχώρηραν. 

αὐτῶν, not the right wing of the Peloponnesian army just men- 
tioned, for the Mantineans were on the left, but, generally, ‘ of 
their army.’ προσπίπτοντες, either 1) attacking the enemy, or 2)* 
dashing into Olpae after the retreat. 1) agrees better with the 


222 THUCYDIDES. 


108. 3. meaning of the word and with the general sense, 2)* is more ap- 


109. 2. 


111, 2. 


propriate to the particular situation. Cp. διεσώζοντο, ἀνεχώρησαν. 


ἀναχώρησιν δὲ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ προφανοῦς οὐκ ἐσπείσαντο ἅπασι, κρύφα δὲ 
Δημοσθένης μετὰ τῶν ξυστρατήγων ᾿Ακαρνάνων σπένδονται Μαντινεῦσι καὶ 
Μενεδαίῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄρχουσι τῶν Πελοποννησίων καὶ ὅσοι αὑτῶν ἦσαν 
ἀξιολογώτατοι ἀποχωρεῖν κατὰ τάχος, βουλόμενος ψιλῶσαι τοὺς ᾿Αμπρα- 
κιώτας τε καὶ τὸν μισθοφόρον ὄχλον τὸν ξενικόν, μάλιστα δὲ Λακεδαιμο- 
νίους καὶ Πελοποννησίους διαβαλεῖν ἐς τοὺς ἐκείνῃ χρήζων “Ἕλληνας, ὡς 
καταπροδόντες τὸ ἑαυτῶν προὐργιαίτερον ἐποιήσαντο. 

ψιλῶσαι, ‘to leave weak and helpless.’ 

τὸν μισθοφόρον ὄχλον τὸν ξενικόν, i.e. mercenaries in the pay of the 
Ambraciots, who have not been previously mentioned, probably 
from the neighbouring tribes of Epirus, cp. ii. 68, 80. It is 
unlikely that the Peloponnesians would have left behind their own 
mercenaries if they had any. And in c. 111 infra no distinction 
is drawn between different classes of Peloponnesians, but only 
between Peloponnesians and Ambraciots. 

The subject of ἀποχωρεῖν is ‘the Peloponnesians’ to be supplied 
from ‘the leaders of the Peloponnesians.’ Demosthenes negociated 
with the Mantineans, Menedaeus, and the leaders of the Peloponne- 
sians, not for their personal safety only, but for the safe withdrawal 
of their forces; the Ambraciots, their allies, being left to their fate. 


ol δ᾽ ᾿Αμπρακιῶται καὶ of ἄλλοι, ὅσοι μὲν ἐτύγχανον οὕτως ἀθρόοι ξυνελ- 
θόντες, ὧς ἔγνωσαν ἀπιόντας, ὥρμησαν καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἔθεον δρόμῳ, ἐπικατα- 
λαβεῖν βουλόμενοι. οἱ δὲ ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες τὸ μὲν πρῶτον καὶ πάντας ἐνόμισαν 
ἀπιέναι ἀσπόνδους ὁμοίως, καὶ τοὺς Πελοποννησίους ἐπεδίωκον. 

μέν after ὅσοι, which is slightly out of place, is opposed to δέ in 
the following sentence, of δ᾽ ’Axapyaves, and has the same effect as if 
the words ran of μὲν ᾿Αμπρακιῶται καὶ of ἄλλοι. .. of δ᾽ ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες. 

1) ὡς ἔγνωσαν may go with what follows, and οὕτως may mean 
‘on the instant,’ ‘ at once.’ 

Or 2) οὕτως may answer to os before ἔγνωσαν, ‘who happened to 
have come together when they saw the others running away.’ Cp. 
iv. 135 med. τοῦ yap κώδωνος παρενεχθέντος, οὕτως ἐς τὸ διάκενον, πρὶν 


ἐπανελθεῖν τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν, ἡ πρόσθεσις ἐγένετο. 


NOTES, BOOK 71. | 223 


A considerable portion of the Ambraciot army is evidently 111. 2. 
imcluded in ὅσοι, for not less than 200 of them were killed, 
222i. 111 fin. 


καὶ yap τοὺς Μεσσηνίους πρώτους ἐπίτηδες 6 Δημοσθένης mpotrafe καὶ 112. 4, 
“-πσπι ροσαγορεύειν ἐκέλευε Δωρίδα τε γλῶσσαν ἱέντας καὶ τοῖς προφύλαξι πίστιν 
“rar apexopivous. 
For the employment by the Athenians of their Messenian allies 
==ngainst a Dorian enemy cp. iv. 41 med. 


6 δὲ Πυθόδωρος . . . ἔπλευσε τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἐπὶ τὸ Λοκρῶν 115. 6. 
«πῤρούριον ὃ πρότερον Λάχης εἷλε. 
‘The fort which Laches had taken’ (c. 99) must have been 
_Tetaken in the interval by the Locrians. 
ἐῤῥύη δὲ περὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἔαρ τοῦτο ὁ ῥύαξ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐκ τῆς Αἴτνης, ὥσπερ 116. 1. 
καὶ τὸ πρότερον, καὶ γὴν τινὰ ἔφθειρε τῶν Καταναίων, οἱ ἐπὶ τῇ Αἴτνῃ τῷ 
ὄρει οἰκοῦσιν, ὅπερ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ὄρος ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ. λέγεται δὲ πεντη- 2. 
κοστῷ ἔτει ῥυῆναι τοῦτο μετὰ τὸ πρότερον ῥεῦμα, τὸ δὲ ξύμπαν τρὶς yeye- 
γῆσθαι τὸ ῥεῦμα, ἀφ᾽ οὗ Σικελία ὑπὸ “Ἑλλήνων οἰκεῖται. 
Thucydides here mentions three eruptions, the latest in the sixth 
year of the war, 426; one fifty years earlier; and a third earlier 
still, but occurring after the Greeks had colonized Sicily. Another 
eruption is said by Diodorus (xiv. 59) to have taken place in the 
year 396. We may infer with reason that the history of Thucydides, 
or at least this part of it, was written before, and not revised after, 
the year 396. 


1.4. 


BOOK IV. 


καὶ ἄλλαι ai πληρούμεναι ἔμελλον αὐτόσε ἐγκαθορμισάμεναι τὸν πόλεμον 
ἐντεῦθεν ποιήσεσθαι. 

Either 1), as Classen suggests, αἱ has crept in from the end of 
the previous word, or 2) the ships which were being manned are 
opposed to the ships which were already manned, rather obscurely 
implied in the preceding clause, αἱ δὲ νῆες Μεσσήνην ἐφρούρουν. 


πρὶν τὸν σῖτον ἐν ἀκμῇ εἶναι. 
Cp. note on ii. 2. 1. 


ὁ μὲν Εὐρυμέδων καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἠπείγοντο ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν, ὁ δὲ Δημο- 
σθένης ἐς τὴν Πύλον πρῶτον ἐκέλευε σχόντας αὐτοὺς καὶ πράξαντας ἃ δεῖ 
τὸν πλοῦν ποιεῖσθαι. 

πράξαντας & δεῖ, ‘after doing what was to be done.’ Either 1)* 
a reference to εἶπον χρῆσθαι ταῖς ναυσὶ ταύταις περὶ τὴν Πελοπόννησον 
above, ‘after executing the design, whatever it was, which De- 
mosthenes had in his mind. The language is purposely vague. 
Or 2) to be explained from the words which follow, ἠξίου reexi- 
ἔεσθαι τὸ χωρίον, ‘after doing what was necessary to fortify the 
place.’ Cp. c. ὅ med. τειχίσαντες of ᾿Αθηναῖοι τοῦ χωρίου τὰ πρὸς 
ἤπειρον καὶ ἃ μάλιστα ἔδει. 


Is Sphacteria the island now called Sphagia, and the harbour of 
Pylos the bay of Navarino, Paleokastro being identified with 
Pylos itself; or are we to look for the scene of action to the 
north of these places, and to assume Paleokastro to have been 
Sphacteria and the lake of Osmyn Aga the harbour? in which 
case Paleokastro must once have been an island, since joined to 
the mainland. 

Dr. Amold first suggested the latter alternative, to which he 
himself inclines, chiefly on the ground that the bay of Navarino 
is too large and the entrance too wide to answer to the description 
of Thucydides. The length of the island given by Thucydides 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 225 


(iv. 8 med.) is fifteen stadia, or about 1% of a mile; the actual length 
is estimated at 2} geographical or more than 2? statute miles. 
Simnilarly the southern entrance to the bay is about 1400 yards in 
width, and the northern, which is at present only practicable for 
boats, about 150 yards (Col. Leake, Morea, i. p. 401 foll.). But 
the southern entrance is said by Thucydides to have been a pas- 
Sage through which not more than eight or nine ships could 
Pass abreast, while the northern did not admit more than two 
Ships: abreast; and both were to have been closed by ships placed 
with their heads looking towards the sea (c. 8 med.). 

“EK «9 these objections we reply, that, whatever difficulties attend the 
Ox-Clixn,ary explanation of the localities, much greater are involved 
im Ἔχ Amold’s attempt to identify Sphacteria with Paleokastro, or 
tae lake of Osmyn Aga with the harbour of Pylos. 

x » It is much more probable that Thucydides should leave 

QR rticed the lake of Osmyn Aga and the hill of Paleokastro 
tka ξὰ πὰ that he should make no mention of the bay of Navarino and 
ors phacteria. The latter, as Mr. Grote remarks, would naturally 
Β τὸ τῷ afforded a landing-place for the Athenians, as the bay of 
ἮΝ a~arino would have given them a harbour, when they passed the 
m= S= Feat at the island of Prote (iv. 13 med.): for the island and the 
Rar boo would not, in the supposed case, have been in possession 
of ehe Lacedaemonians, And Thucydides would not have op- 
POs=e τὴν ἤπειρον simply to τὴν νῆσον (iv. 8 fin.) had there been two 
AF =acent islands close to the coast. 

_ =) It is impossible to suppose the name of Sphagia, which was 
ive to Sphacteria in ancient times, cp. Strabo viii. 4. 2 (καὶ ἡ 
Pe κειμένη πλησίον τοῦ Πύλου Σφαγία νῆσος" ἡ δ᾽ αὐτὴ καὶ Σφακτηρία 

χαμένη, x7.d.), to have been transferred from Paleokastro to the 

Present Sphagia. Of all old traditions the names of places are the 

Ost trustworthy, and such a change of name as is suggested by 
- Arnold is most unusual, if not unparalleled, in ancient geography. 
And this change is supposed to have occurred in the name of a 
Place which, according to Pausanias (iv. 36. 4), was known to all 
Mankind for its historical associations. It is true that Pliny, N. H. 
iv, 55 (12, 19) says that there were ‘ante Pylum tres Sphagiae.’ 
But there is no proof whatever that any of these were identical 
VOL. IL Q 


226 THUCYDIDES. 


with Paleokastro, or even that Paleokastro, now joined to the 
mainland, was an island at all in ancient times. 

3) It is possible that Thucydides may have been in some degree 
mistaken (see Introduction on the Geography of Thucydides), or 
that the coast may have changed, or both. Some change in the 
coast is indicated by a shallow running out from the southern side 
of the southern channel, and extending nearly half way across. 
Here the water is only six or eight fathoms deep, whereas in the 
deepest part of the channel the depth is thirty-five fathoms. See 
Dr. Arnold’s map. 

4) The localities, according to Col. Leake, exactly answer to the 
description given by Thucydides, with the single exception of the 
size of the island and the width of the channel. No such exact re- 
semblance is to be found in Paleokastro, which is much too small 
to have been the scene of operations, being about a statute mile in 
length. And very great changes must be assumed in the forma- 
tion of the coast if Dr. Arnold’s theory be adopted. 

5) The remains at Paleokastro, which are very considerable (see 
Dictionary of Geography, Pylos), show ‘that the place was inhabited 
from a remote time. But Thucydides tells us that the island was 
covered with wood and pathless, having never been inhabited (διὰ 
τὴν ἀεὶ ἐρημίαν, iv. 29 med.). 

It should be remembered that Pylos, the fort of the Athenians, 
is situated to the north of Sphacteria, and may have been the 
Acropolis of the ancient Pylos, which was somewhere in the neigh- 
bourhood. But the site, and almost the name (for the Lacedae- 
monians called the place Coryphasium) were lost in the time of 
Thucydides. Cp. the oracle, partly quoted in Aristoph. Knights, 
1059, (whatever it meant), ἔστι Πύλος πρὸ Πύλοιο᾽ [Πύλος ye μέν 
ἐστι καὶ ἄλλη. 


καὶ ἀπέφαινε πολλὴν εὐπορίαν ξύλων τε καὶ λίθων, καὶ φύσει καρτερὸν 
ὃν καὶ ἔρημον αὐτό τε καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς χώρας. 

ἔρημον αὐτό τε καί x.r.A. is an inexact expression, some such idea 
as ἐρημία ἦν having to be supplied from ἔρημον with ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς χώρας. 
Lit. ‘the place was barren itself, and over a great part of the 
country,’ i.e. there was barrenness. ‘The substantival use of such 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 227 


Phrases with ἐπί is not uncommon, cp. ii. 76 fin. μίαν μὲν (μηχανὴν) 3. 2. 
ἢ τοῦ μεγάλου οἰκοδομήματος, κατὰ τὸ χῶμα προσαχθεῖσα, ἐπὶ μέγα τε 
«αγέσεισε καὶ τοὺς Πλαταιέας ἐφόβησεν, where ἐπὶ μέγα is an accusative : 
Ty. 100 med. καὶ ἐσεσιδήρωτο ἐπὶ μέγα καὶ τοῦ ἄλλου ξύλου, where it is 
2 χχοχχίηλιίνα, as here. 


«Στ ἄχει yap σταδίους μάλιστα ἡ Πύλος τῆς Σπάρτης τετρακοσίους, καὶ ἔστιν 3. 2. 
ἜΣ Μεσσηνίᾳ ποτὲ οὔσῃ γῇ. 
<p. Strabo, viii. 4. 2, φησὶ δὲ Θουκυδίδης, ναύσταθμον ὑπάρξαι τῶν 
So ier ταύτην τὴν Πύλον, where it may be observed that Strabo is 
nc © quite accurate, for Thucydides only speaks of Pylos as situated 
+r. ‘@ Ene ancient territory of the Messenians, and says nothing about 
the <= i» having used the bay as a harbour. 


ἐὰν 


“τῷ δὲ πολλὰς ἔφασαν εἶναι ἄκρας ἐρήμους τῆς Πελοποννήσου, ἣν βούληται ϑ. 3. 
OE ae Aayfavey τὴν πόλιν δαπανᾶν. 
mx. ‘S* The use οἵ δαπανᾶν in the active sense, ‘to waste the resources 
of ee city,’ is sufficiently defended by Antiph. De Caed. Herod. (v.) 
3 zal by μὲν τότε παραχρῆμα ἐβασάνισαν, οὗτος μὲν οὐδὲν εἶπε περὶ ἐμοῦ 
Ὄρος" ὃν 3° ἡμέραις ὕστερον πολλαῖς ἐδαπάνησαν (two MSS. repeat 
“ ἠγεσαν) . . . οὗτος ἦν ὁ πεισθεὶς ὑπὸ τούτων: App. Civ. i. 94, ἄνεμός 


— “Warolis ἐμπεσὼν és τοσοῦτον αὐτὴν (τὴν πόλιν) ἐδαπάνησεν ὡς μηδὲν 
τ; “ἀν ἢ, πόλεως λάφυρον γενέσθαι : Suid. 5. ν. Θουκυδίδης δὲ τὴν πόλιν 


Se χὐὰν φησιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς ἀναλώματα μεγάλα ἐμβάλλειν. 

ΑΙ Τ᾿ is not impossible, however, 2) that the word may be taken in 
=== amore ordinary neuter sense with τὴν πόλιν for its subject: ‘if he 

> occupying these places wished that the city should be put to 


SFE ense.’ καταλαμβάνων then involves an anacoluthon; but cp. 
Ἄς te on iii. 53. 4. 


“ποὺς Μεσσηνίους οἰκείους ὄντας αὐτῷ τὸ ἀρχαίον. 8. 3. 
“The Messenians who were the ancient inhabitants of the place,’ 
Ἧς. ‘The Messenians who were attached to him of old.’ 


ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἔπειθεν οὔτε τοὺς στρατηγοὺς οὔτε τοὺς στρατιώτας, ὕστερον 4. 1. 
Real τοῖς ταξιάρχοις κοινώσας, ἡσύχαζεν ὑπὸ ἀπλοίας, μέχρι αὐτοῖς τοῖς 
Ὁτρατιώταις σχολάζουσιν ὁρμὴ ἐπέπεσε περιστᾶσιν ἐκτειχίσαι τὸ χωρίον. 

We know too little of the circumstances to be able to explain 

Q2 


Ι. 


228 THUCYDIDES. 


. why Demosthenes, having addressed first the generals and then 


the army, should have applied last of all to the taxiarchs or officers 
who were next in authority to the generals. He may have said, 
‘I can do nothing with the generals or with the soldiers en masse, 
I wish you would use your influence with them in detail.’ It has 
also been supposed that the clause ὕστερον... κοινώσας is explan- 
atory Of οὐκ ἔπειθεν τοὺς στρατιώτας, and implies that Demosthenes 
addressed himself to the soldiers only through the taxiarchs. But 
the order of the words is adverse to this interpretation. 
. ἡσύχαζεν ὑπὸ ἀπλοίας is a confusion of two ideas: he was pre- 
vented from sailing by the bad weather, and he was reduced to 
inactivity by the refusal of the army to co-operate. 

περιστᾶσι, not ‘changing their minds,’ but ‘standing about.’ 
περιίστασθαι is not used in classical Greek of persons in the sense 
of ‘change.’ The aorist (see note on iv. 112. 1) is retained in the 
participle, as well as in the principal verb ἐκτειχίσαι, although the 
participle coupled with it, σχολάζουσι, is in the present, with which 
the meaning of the verb has a natural affinity. περιστᾶσιν is more 
definite than σχολάζουσι, and, said of the sailors, ‘hanging about,’ 
is the beginning of the picture in which Thucydides goes on to 
describe their unwonted activity. Or 2) περιστᾶσιν may be closely 
connected with éxrexyica: in the sense of surrounding or coming 
about the place=sepiorjva: καὶ ἐκτειχίσαι. 

ἐσέπεσε is the reading of the great majority of MSS. Though 
not so idiomatic as ἐπέπεσε and ἐνέπεσε, it admits of a sufficient sense: 
‘There fell amongst them a desire.’ Classen thinks that the vivid 
representation of detail in this passage is due to the testimony of 
ocular witnesses, perhaps even of the historian himself. Though 
the narrative is probably derived from ocular testimony, is not the 
liveliness of the picture rather due to the writer’s own genius? 


of δὲ ἑορτὴν τινα ἔτυχον ἄγοντες. 

A frequent cause of delay in Spartan military operations: cp. 
v. 54 med. 82 and Herod. vi. 106 (before Marathon), vii. 206 (be- 
fore Thermopylae), ix. 7 (before Plataea). 


dua δὲ πρὼ ἐσβαλόντες, καὶ τοῦ cirov ἔτι χλωροῦ ὄντος, ἐσπάνιζον rpo- 


ie τοῖς πολλοῖς. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 229 


“π οἷς πολλοῖς, for the main body, exclusive of the officers, and 6. 1. 
thos who had money. 


seara δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον Σιμωνίδης ᾿Αθηναίων στρατηγὸς "Hiova τὴν ἐπὶ 7. 1. 
Θρ ςἔκηε, Μενδαίων ἀποικίαν, πολεμίαν δὲ οὖσαν, .. . κατέλαβε. 

Not Eion upon the Strymon, which had belonged to Athens 
Sirace the time of Cimon. The name of Eion, meaning ‘shore,’ 
Was a common one, and is attributed to three if not more places. 
Thucydides tells us that the Eion here mentioned was on the coast 

of “K"hrrace, but the exact spot cannot be defined (Arnold). 


penass...al ὑπερενεχθεῖσαι τὸν Λευκαδίων ἰσθμὸν καὶ λαθοῦσαι ras ἐν 8.1. 


Ζεκας ιῦ» ῳ ᾿Αττικὰς ναὺς κιτιλ. 


*az@ λαθοῦσαι, not ‘and so escaping,’ but ‘and also escaping,’ for 
Zac y πη was far south of Leucas. 


3-39 w δὲ νῆσον ταύτην φοβούμενοι, μὴ ἐξ αὐτῆς τὸν πόλεμον σφίσι ποιῶνται, 8, Ἃ 

ὅτε δ a; διεβίβασαν εἰς αὐτήν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἤπειρον ἄλλους ἔταξαν. otra 8. 
τ οἷς ᾿Αθηναίοις τήν τε νῆσον πολεμίαν ἔσεσθαι τήν τε ἤπειρον, ἀπόβασιν 
ode “Eyovoay' τὰ γὰρ αὐτῆς τῆς Πύλου ἔξω τοῦ ἐσπλοῦ πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος 

EX κα κενὰ ὄντα οὐκ ἕξειν ὅθεν ὁρμώμενοι ὠφελήσουσι τοὺς αὑτῶν. 
ΒΝ ~ Whe passage distinguishes between the shore in the immediate 
ix %=hbourhood of Pylos, which had no harbours, and the adjoin- 
= & mainland, on which the Peloponnesians posted soldiers. γάρ 
= kins, or rather completes, the explanation of ἀπόβασιν οὐκ 
τοι, σὰν. ‘For the mainland (—as opposed to the island—where it 
‘Y= not defended by soldiers,) was by nature inaccessible.’ 

“wd γὰρ αὐτῆς, either 1) a nominativus pendens, τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους being 

the subject of ἕξειν, or 2) governing ἕξειν, which Ξε παρέξειν. 


, mal τὰς τριήρεις, aimep ἦσαν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν καταλειφθεισῶν, ἀνασπάσας 9, 1. 
VES τὸ τείχισμα προσεσταύρωσε, καὶ τοὺς ναύτας ἐξ αὐτῶν ὥπλισεν ἀσπίσι 
TE φαύλαις καὶ οἱσυΐναις ταῖς πολλαῖς. 
προσεσταύρωσε, 1)" planted a stockade close to the ships, for their 
Protection, or 2) joined the ships by a stockade to the fort. 


ἀσπίσι re φαύλαις καὶ -Ξ- ἀσπίσι φαύλαις re καί. Compare note on 
L 9. 3. § 1. 


230 THUCYDIDES. 


9.2. 9 μάλιστα ἐκείνους προσεδέχετο πειράσειν ἀποβαίνειν ἐς χωρία μὲν 
χαλεπὰ καὶ πετρώδη πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος τετραμμένα, σφίσι δὲ τοῦ τείχους 
ταύτῃ ἀσθενεστάτον ὄντος ἐπισπάσασθαι αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖτο προθυμήσεσθαι. 

1)* The subject of ἐπισπάσασθαι is some notion such as τὸ ἀσθενὲς 
τοῦ τείχους gathered from σφίσι δὲ τοῦ τείχους .. . ὄντος. προθυμή- 
σεσθαι is used in a pregnant sense :—‘to be eager or energetic, 
i.e. ‘to make this their point,’ and so ‘to make the attack.’ 
The future implies that their course was already decided by the 
weakness of the place. ‘The weakness of the wall would attract 
them, and so they would determine to make the attack.’ Cp. note 
on iii. 66. 2. The aorist (ἐπισπάσασθαι), being the historical or in- 
definite tense, is sometimes used when we should expect the future. 
Cp. ii. 3 med. ἐνόμισαν ἐπιθέμενοι ῥᾳδίως κρατῆσαι: iii, 24 init. νομέζοντες 
ἥκιστα σφᾶς ταύτην αὐτοὺς ὑποτοπῆσαι τραπέσθαι. 

2) ἐπισπάσασθαι has been altered into ἐπισπάσεσθαι (pass.). 

a) The subject of ἐπισπάσεσθαι may then be αὐτούς, the Lace- 
daemonians. ὁ) It is also possible with Poppo to make ἐπισπάσεσθαι 
dependent on προθυμήσεσθαι, ‘they would be desirous to be drawn 
on. But the ideas contained in the two words ἐπισπάσεσθαι, 
προθυμήσεσθαι, thus connected, contradict each other, the one being 
passive and the other active. 

The change of reading is, however, unnecessary. 


10.1. “Avdpes ot ξυναράμενοι τοῦδε τοῦ κινδύνου, μηδεὶς ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ τοιᾷδε ἀνάγκῃ 
ξυνετὸς βουλέσθω δοκεῖν εἶναι, ἐκλογιζόμενος ἅπαν τὸ περιεστὼς ἡμᾶς δεινόν, 
μᾶλλον δὲ ἀπερισκέπτως εὔελπις ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι τοῖς ἐναντίοις, καὶ ἐκ τούτων 
ἂν περιγενόμενος. 

ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι, 501]. βουλέσθω. καί emphasizes ἐκ τούτων : ‘let 
him resolve to meet the enemy unrefiectingly with a good hope, 
as one who will survive even these dangers.’ καὶ ἐκ τούτων dy 
περιγενόμενος refers to the feeling and not to the fact, and is to be 
taken closely with εὔελπις. 


10.3. τοῦ re γὰρ χωρίον τὸ δυσέμβατον ἡμέτερον νομίζω, [ὃ] μενόντων ἡμῶν 
ξύμμαχον γίγνεται, ὑποχωρήσασι δέ, καίπερ χαλεπὸν dy, εὔπορον ἔσται, 
μηδενὸς κωλύοντος᾽ καὶ τὸν πολέμιον δεινότερον ἔξομεν μὴ ῥᾳδίως αὐτῷ 
πάλιν οὔσης τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως, ἣν καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν βιάζηται. 


NOTES, BOOK 1V. 231 


«Ξ before μενόντων is omitted in nearly every MS., but has been 10. 3. 
re = © <red by recent editors in order to escape the harshness of the 
2S >" Eu deton. The necessity for the insertion is doubtful. Cp. iii. 
3a _ <a and note, where oi before οὐκ ἐξ dy ἂν xapi{nobe . . . ἀκροῶνται 
Ojai» me ἰδ similarly omitted and inserted. 

ἰΣ »-ιεοχωρήσασι corresponding to μενόντων is a dative of relation, 

ox ==m.. ‘dativus incommodi,’ referring to the Athenians, ‘so far as 
«ς3» χὰ <erns us, if we retire,’ or ‘we shall find if we retire,’ and is 
tke «ἘΞ = -efore not to be taken after εὔπορον. The meaning is, ‘ but 
1 —~s™we once retreat, although rugged, it will be easy enough for 
tra << enemy. Cp. i. 73. 2, and note, εἰ καὶ δι’ ὄχλου μᾶλλον ἔσται ἀεὶ 
πε΄ aa ββολλομένοις. 

aeue—emi indicates a further stage: after the Lacedaemonians have 
Ξ SE ected a landing, it is conceivable that the Athenians may rally, 
m= ἂς ἢ press upon them in turn, but then, not being able to retreat, 
tka — zy Will resist to the last. 


amen) οὐκ ἐν γῇ στρατός ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου μείζων, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ νεῶν, ais 10. 4. 
πὰ λὰ τὰ καίρια δεῖ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ξυμβῆναι. 
aux τοῦ ὁμοίου is an amplification of ἐν γῇ and equivalent to ὥστε 
= =~, ἐκ τοῦ dpoiov, ‘and it is not a.larger army on land, where it 
_— “<—=nild be (otherwise) on an equality, but one on shipboard, and 
Ἐς Hips require many favourable accidents.’ 


καὶ ἅμα ἀξιῶ ὑμᾶς, ᾿Αθηναίους ὄντας καὶ ἐπισταμένους ἐμπειρίᾳ τὴν vav- 10. 5. 
“majy ἐπ᾽ ἄλλους ἀπόβασιν, ὅτι, εἴ τις ὑπομένοι καὶ μὴ φόβῳ ῥοθίου καὶ 
Ἔα ἂν δεινότητος κατάπλου ὑποχωροίη, οὐκ ἄν ποτε βιάζοιτο, καὶ αὐτοὺς 
να. Ὁ μεῖναί τε καὶ ἀμυνομένους παρ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ῥαχίαν σώζειν ἡμᾶς τε αὐτοὺς 

Sax) τὸ χωρίον. 

καὶ αὐτούς, ‘now that your own turn has come.’ The naval ex- 
Werience of the Athenians should have taught them how difficult it 
“wwas to force a landing in the face of an enemy: they should 
@emember this now that they were on land themselves and had to 


Xneet a naval attack. 


ταῖς ναυσὶν dua, οὔσαις τεσσαράκοντα καὶ τρισί. 11. 2. 
Sixty was the number of the ships which had gone to Corcyra 


11. 2. 


12. 3. 


138. I. 


13. 2. 


13. 3. 


232 THUCYDIDES. 


and had returned to Pylos (iv. 8 init.) But only forty-three are 
engaged in the attack on Pylos. How the remaining seventeen 
ships were employed during the battle is not stated. 


ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ περιϊδεῖν τεῖχος πεποιημένους. 

‘Who have (or had) constructed a fort in the country.’ The 
perfect or pluperfect participle presents the fact as continuing to 
the mind, and therefore more vividly than the aorist. 


ἐπὶ πολὺ γὰρ ἐποίει τῆς δόξης ἐν rp τότε τοῖς μὲν ἠπειρώταις μάλιστα 
εἶναι καὶ τὰ πεζὰ κρατίστοις, τοῖς δὲ θαλασσίοις τε καὶ ταῖς ναυσὶ πλεῖστον 
προέχειν. 

ἐποίει, not 1) ‘ for the prevailing opinion was that the Lacedae- 
monians were superior by land,’ lit. ‘made for the superiority of,’ 
ἐποίει being intransitive (cp. iv. 8 med. ἡ δὲ εὔνοια παρὰ πολὺ ἐποίει 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον ἐς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους) ; but 2)* taking τοῖς μέν 
x.r.A. as the subject of ἐποίει, ‘to be superior by land was ἃ great 
part of the glory of the Lacedaemonians.’ For ἐπὶ πολύ, in either 
case, cp. note on iv. 3. 2. 


ἐλπίζοντες τὸ κατὰ τὸν λιμένα τεῖχος ὕψος μὲν ἔχειν, ἀποβάσεως δὲ 
μάλιστα οὔσης ἐλεῖν μηχαναῖς. 

Either 1) as they could certainly land there, or 2)* as that was 
the best landing-place. τεῖχος is the subject of ἔχειν, the object of 


ἑλεῖν. 


αἱ ἐκ τῆς Ζακύνθου νῆες τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων παραγίγνονται πεντήκοντα. 

πεντήκοντα, the reading of two good MSS. (Cl. Ven.), must here be 
substituted for τεσσαράκοντα, the reading of all the rest. For @) the 
Athenian fleet, which already numbered thirty-seven (cp. iv. 2 init., 
5 fin., 8 init.), must have numbered more than forty after receiving 
the reinforcements mentioned in this passage; and 4) the subse- 
quent addition of twenty ships makes the whole number seventy 
(c. 23 fin.) 


τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ παρασκευασάμενοι ὡς ἐπὶ ναυμαχίαν ἀνήγοντο ἣν μὲν 
ἀντεκπλεῖν ἐθέλωσι σφίσιν ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, εἰ δὲ μή, ὡς αὐτοὶ ἐπεσ- 


πλευσούμενοι. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 233 


ἣν μέν, as in iii. 3 med. followed by εἰ δέ, indicates the preferable 18. 3. 

alternative. The order of words is inverted for the sake of bring- 
ing the clause ἣν μὲν ἀντεκπλεῖν x.r.A. into nearer connection with 
the clause to which it is opposed. The whole sentence would 
have run more naturally τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ ἀνήγοντο, ἣν μὲν ἀντεκπλεῖν 
ἐθέλωσι σφίσιν ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, παρασκενασάμενοι ὡς ἐπὶ ναυμαχίων, 
εἰ δὲ μή καὶ. There is therefore no necessity to suppose an 
aposiopesis. 


καὶ ἐπιδιώκοντες ὡς διὰ βραχέος ἔτρωσαν μεν πολλάς, πέντε δὲ ἔλαβον 14. 1. 
κτλ. 

Not 1), as Kriiger, ‘they pursued them, and, as the distance was 
so short, disabled many and took five.’ For a) ὡς διὰ βραχέος goes 
awkwardly with ἔτρωσαν, and δ) ἐπιδιώκοντες seems to require a 
qualification. But 2)* ‘pursuing them as well as they could in such 
a narrow space, ὡς διὰ βραχέος being the correction of ἐπιδιώκοντες. 
‘As far as it could be called a pursuit when the land was so near.’ 


καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κεκωλῦσθαι ἐδόκει ἕκαστος ᾧ μή τινι καὶ αὐτὸς ἔργῳ 14. 2, 
παρῆν. 

ἐν τούτῳ may be either 1)* taken adverbially in the sense of 
‘ meanwhile,’ i.e. ‘in this state of things,’ or 2) connected with 

love. 

According to 1)* the subject of κεκωλῦσθαι is ἔργον supplied from 
ᾧ τινι ἔργῳ, ‘each man thought that any work, or part of the action, 
in which he did not himself’ (καί, as well as others) ‘share, was 
marred.’ | 

According to 2) ἐν τούτῳ ᾧ μή τινι ἔργῳ παρῆν:Ξε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ ἔργῳ 
ᾧ τινι μὴ παρῆν, ‘in any part of the action in which he was not 
himself present;’ and either @) κεκωλῦσθαι is impersonal, or ὁ) 
ἕκαστος ἐδόκει κεκωλῦσθαι may mean, ‘every one appeared to have 
been kept back by force from any part of the action in which he 
did not himself share.’ . 

Or 3) ἔργῳ may be taken closely with παρῆν in the sense of 
‘actually,’ and ἐν τούτῳ... ᾧ are connected as in ii. 8. 4 (see note), 
ἐν τούτῳ re κεκωλῦσθαι ἐδόκει ἑκάστῳ τὰ πράγματα, ᾧ μή τις αὐτὸς παρέσται. 

We cannot however argue that the construction here must be 


234 THUCYDIDES. 


14. 2. similar to that in ii. 8. 4, for Thucydides may have connected the 
same or nearly the same words differently in different passages. 


15. 1. BovAevery παραχρῆμα ὁρῶντας, ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ. 
‘That, having the facts before their eyes, they should at once 
take such resolutions as might seem good.’ 


15. 2. καὶ κινδυνεύειν οὐκ ἐβούλοντο ἢ ὑπὸ λιμοῦ τι παθεῖν αὐτούς, ἣ ὑπὸ πλήθους 
βιασθέντας, [ἢ] κρατηθῆναι. 

Several good MSS. insert ἤ before κρατηθῆναι. The meaning will 
then be ‘fearing lest they should die, either by starvation, or over- 
whelmed by superior numbers, or be captured.’ But it may be 
remarked that the words τι παθεῖν and κρατηθῆναι, according to this 
reading, must have a somewhat forced explanation put upon them. 


16. 1. φυλάσσειν δὲ καὶ τὴν νῆσον ᾿Αθηναίους μηδὲν ἧσσον ὅσα μὴ ἀποβαί- 
»νοντας. 

‘ Doing everything but disembarking,’ or ‘ but not to dis- 
embark,’ the two words, like ὅτι μή, having by usage passed into a 
single adverb, in which the grammatical construction is lost sight 
of. The phrase here may be analysed grammatically into ὅσα ἦν 
φυλάσσειν μὴ ἀποβαίνοντας. Cp. Arnold on i. 111. 6. 


16. 3. αἱ μὲν σπονδαὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐγένοντο, καὶ ai νῆες παρεδύθησαν οὖσαι wept 
ἑξήκοντα, 

The Lacedaemonian naval force never approached anything 
like the high figure of 500, which was the aim of the confederacy 
at the commencement of the war (ii. 7 med.). At this time the 
ships engaged in the sea-fight, including some which belonged to 
the allies (iv. 11 fin.), together with all the ships on the coast of 
Laconia, amount only to sixty. Of the forty-three which had 
been engaged, five had been taken by the Athenians (iv. 14 init.). 
So that, if the terms of the contract were strictly fulfilled, the entire 
Lacedaemonian fleet at Pylos and elsewhere, including an unknown 
number of allied vessels, could not have exceeded sixty-five. 


18. 2. καίτοι οὔτε δυνάμεως ἐνδείᾳ ἐπάθομεν αὐτό, οὔτε μείζονος προσγενομένηφ 
ὑβρίσαντες, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀεὶ ὑπαρχόντων γνώμῃ σφαλέντες, ἐν ᾧ πᾶσι τὸ 


αὐτὸ ὁμοίως ὑπάρχει. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 235 


Not ‘ we were deceived by the course of events,’ but ‘ without 18. 2. 
any change in our circumstances we were mistaken in our judg- 
ment.’ 

ἐν ᾧ κιτὰ,, Scil. ἐν τῷ σφάλλεσθαι γνώμῃ, ‘and in a matter of judg- 
ment a like error may befall any one.’ 


σωφρόνων δὲ ἀνδρῶν, οἵτινες τἀγαθὰ ἐς ἀμφίβολον ἀσφαλῶς ἔθεντο, 18. 4. 
(καὶ ταῖς ξυμφοραῖς οἱ αὐτοὶ εὐξυνετώτερον ἂν προσφέροιντο,) τόν τε πόλεμον 
»ὠμίσωσι μή, καθ᾽ ὅσον dy τις αὐτοῦ μέρος βούληται μεταχειρίζειν, τούτῳ 
Lwreiva, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν αἱ τύχαι αὐτῶν ἡγήσωνται. 
In the first clause there is a confusion of σωφρόνων δὲ ἀνδρῶν τὸ 
«4» σθαι and σώφρονες δὲ ἄνδρες oirwes ἔθεντο. Cp. ii. 44. 1, τὸ δ᾽ 
“«- ὠτυχές, οἱ ἄν κιτιλι, and note. As the sentence proceeds the con- 
= truction varies. καὶ ταῖς ξυμφοραῖς... προσφέροιντο is a paren- 
ἘΞ hesis: τόν re πόλεμον νομίσωσι resumes the thread of οἵτινες... ἔθεντο, 
“Wout as if of ἄν instead of ofrwes had preceded. τόν re πόλεμον xr. 
—QLit. ‘and who consider that war waits upon a man, not in that 
“wp recise measure in which he wishes to take it in hand, but as the 
=accidents which may befal men (airév)—or the accidents which 
wovern these matters—may determine.’ τούτῳ refers to the person 
implied in ris. αὐτῶν may be either masculine or neuter. In the 
former case it refers to some general notion implied in ἄνδρες 
σώφρονες, i.e. ‘mankind.’ In the latter it means ‘these matters,’ the 
antecedent being obscurely implied in the previous clause. For the 
thought cp. iv. 64 init. μωρίᾳ φιλονεικῶν ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς τε οἰκείας γνώμης 
ὁμοίως αὐτοκράτωρ εἶναι καὶ ἧς οὐκ ἄρχω τύχης : Vi. 78 med. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν 
τε ἅμα τῆς τε ἐπιθυμίας καὶ τῆς τύχης τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμοίως ταμίαν γενέσθαι. 


καὶ ἄμεινον ἡγούμενοι ἀμφοτέροις μὴ διακινδυνεύεσθαι, εἴτε βίᾳ διαφύγοιεν 19. 1. 
παρατυχούσης τινὸς σωτηρίας, εἴτε καὶ ἐκπολιορκηθέντες μᾶλλον ἂν χει- 
ρωθεῖεν. 

μὴ διακινδυνεύεσθαι κιτιλ., ‘not to run the risk whether they are 
to escape, or whether, on the other hand, they may not be forced 
to surrender, and pass still more completely into your hands.’ 
διαφύγοιεν is the deliberative optative, ἡγούμενοι, which has preceded, 
being the imperfect participle=émet ἡγοῦντο, ‘ thinking when they 
came hither.’ In the second clause the construction changes, the 


190.1. 


19. 2. 


20. I. 


20. 2. 


236 THUCYDIDES. 


only remaining, and therefore the more definite, alternative being 
expressed by the optative with ἄν. 


νουΐζομέν re τὰς μεγάλας ἔχθρας μάλιστ᾽ ἂν διαλύεσθαι βεβαίως, οὐκ ἣν 
ἀνταμυνόμενός τις καὶ ἐπικρατήσας τὰ πλέω τοῦ πολέμου κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην ὅρκοις 
ἐγκαταλαμβάνων μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου ξυμβῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἥν, παρὸν τὸ αὐτὸ δρᾶσαι, 
πρὸς τὸ ἐπιεικὲς καὶ ἀρετῇ αὐτὸ νικήσας, παρὰ ἃ προσεδέχετο, μετρίως 
ξυναλλαγῇ. 

Either 1)* τὸ αὐτό refers to the course of action implied in the 
previous sentence, αὐτό to the feeling which dictates it, ‘ having, in 
a spirit of moderation and by an effort of virtue, overcome the 
temptation to enforce an oppressive peace ;’ or 2) τὸ αὐτὸ δρᾶσαι 
may mean ‘to effect the same object’ which might have been 
obtained by war, ‘in a gentle manner,’ the comma being placed after 
ἐπιεικές, NOt δρᾶσαι, and αὐτὸ νικήσας, ‘ having won his point.’ It may 
be fairly objected to this explanation that the two participles, παρόν 
and νικήσας, are then made to refer to different times. 

παρὰ ἃ προσεδέχετο, scil. ὁ ἐχθρός to be supplied from the general 
meaning of the sentence. 

The reading αὐτόν, adopted by Classen on slight MS. authority, 
and referred by him to the words τοῦ πολεμίου (an emendation of 
τοῦ πολέμου), is an unnecessary alteration of the text. 


ἐν ᾧ ἀνάγκη ἀΐδιον ὑμῖν ἔχθραν πρὸς τῇ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίαν ἔχειν. 

The speaker is attracted by a connection of sound, and perhaps 
a fancied connection of sense or etymology, between ἀΐδιον and 
ἰδίαν. For a similar play of words cp. iv. 63 med. καὶ αὐτοὶ μά- 
λιστα μὲν ἐς ἀΐδιον ξυμβῶμεν, εἰ δὲ μή, χρόνον ὡς πλεῖστον σπεισάμενοι τὰς 
ἰδίας διαφορὰς ἐς αὖθις ἀναβαλώμεθα : iv. 87 fin. ἀΐδιον δόξαν καταθέσθαι, 
καὶ αὐτοὶ τά τε ἴδια μὴ βλαφθῆναι x.1.d. 


καὶ αὐτοί τε ἀντὶ πολέμον εἰρήνην ἑλώμεθα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν 
ἀνάπαυσιν κακῶν ποιήσωμεν᾽ οἱ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ὑμᾶς αἰτιωτέρους ἡγήσονται. 
πολεμοῦνται μὲν yap ἀσαφῶς ὁποτέρων ἀρξάντων᾽ καταλύσεως δὲ γιγνο- 
μένης, ἧς νῦν ὑμεῖς τὸ πλέον κύριοί ἐστε, τὴν χάριν ὑμῖν προσθήσουσιν. 

οἱ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, 1) καΐ qualifies the whole relative clause and not 
ἐν τούτῳ only, ‘who, as they obtain peace, will also acknowledge 
you to be the chief authors of it.’ 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 237 


Or 2) ‘ who will consider you to be the chief authors of peace, 20. 2. 
=mss they consider you to have been of the war.’ But the latter 
= &=atement would be too strong, and would be an ungracious topic 

ΔῈ <> the Lacedaemonians to introduce. It would also be incon- 
=X = tent with the words which follow, ἀσαφῶς ὁποτέρων ἀρξάντων. 

Or better 3) καὶ ἐν rovrp=‘ who will give you the credit of the 

E> <e=<ce, as they will hold you answerable if the war be renewed.’ 
πολεμοῦνται, either 1), from πολεμεῖσθαι, ‘they are at war,’ or, 
“© m— anslating the passive more literally, ‘war is made upon them,’ or — 
=== Ὁ from πολεμοῦσθαι, ‘they are forced to go to war;’ the first accords 
“We καὶ with the indefiniteness of ἀσαφῶς ὁποτέρων ἀρξάντων. 


ἡμῶν γὰρ καὶ ὑμῶν τὰ αὐτὰ λεγόντων τό ye ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ἴστε ὅτι 20. 4. 
ἜΣ" ,»..ὄ δεέστερον ὃν τὰ μέγιστα τιμήσει. 
That the jealousy of the other Hellenes was speedily aroused by 
=m temporary combination of the Lacedaemonians and Athenians, 
“~awhich they regarded as a conspiracy against their liberties, we learn 
rom v. 29. 
Cp. Aristoph. Pax, 1082,— 
ἐξὸν σπεισαμένοις κοινῇ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἄρχειν. 


ὁρῶντες δὲ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὔτε σφίσιν οἷόν τε ὃν ἐν πλήθει εἰπεῖν, εἴ τι BB. 3. 
καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ξυμφορᾶς ἐδόκει αὐτοῖς ξυγχωρεῖν, μὴ ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους 
διαβληθῶσιν εἰπόντες καὶ οὐ τυχόντες κιτ.λ. 

εἴ τι καί κιτιλ., not ‘even if they were willing,’ but ‘although they 
might be willing,’ or ‘however willing they might be.’ That this — 
is the meaning is shown by the use of εἰ καί not καὶ εἰ (see Jelf, 

861. 2), and also by the context. The Lacedaemonians were clearly 
willing to make concessions. Cp. viii. 66 med. ὥστε κέρδος ὁ μὴ 
πάσχων τι βίαιον, el καὶ σιγῴη, ἐνόμιζε. 


καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐσεβεβλήκεσαν πανδημεὶ ἐς τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν. 44. 2. 
καί may here be emphatic, not copulative. ‘ And (δῶ) they them- 
selves too.’ But see note on i. 9. 3. 
This is probably a new invasion, for the Locrians, after their 
former invasion, are described as having retreated, iv. 1. And 
cp. c. 25. 3. 


25. 4. 


26. 5. 


238 THUCYDIDES. 


καὶ γικηθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων διὰ τάχους ἀπέπλευσαν ὡς ἕκαστοι 
ἔτυχον ἐς τὰ οἰκεῖα στρατόπεδα, τό τε ἐν τῇ Μεσσήνῃ καὶ ἐν τῷ 'Ῥηγίῳ, 
μίαν ναῦν ἀπολέσαντες. 

ἐν τῷ Ῥηγίῳ, not literally ‘at Rhegium,’ which was friendly to the 
Athenians, but ‘in the territory of Rhegium,’ which had been in- 
vaded by the Locrian army. Cp. iii. 91 fin. καὶ στρατευσάμενοι 
ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐν τῇ Τανάγρᾳ ἐδήουν καὶ ἐνηυλίσαντο : iv. 5 med. 
καί τι καὶ αὐτοὺς ὁ στρατὸς ἔτι ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις ὧν ἔπεσχε : V. 63 init. 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ ἐπειδὴ ἀνεχώρησαν ef “Apyous: v. 77 init. ἐξ ’Em- 
δαύρω ἐκβῶντας. 


προσπλεύσαντες δὲ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ ‘Pryivos ὁρῶντες τὰς ναῦς κενὰς 
ἐνέβαλον, καὶ χειρὶ σιδηρᾷ ἐπιβληθείσῃ μίαν ναῦν αὐτοὶ ἀπώλεσαν, τῶν 
ἀνδρῶν ἀποκολυμβησάντων. 

The MSS. vary between αὐτοί (Poppo) and αὐτοῖς (Bekker). The 
context shows that μίαν ναῦν αὐτοῖς ἀπώλεσαν can only be interpreted, 
‘the Athenians lost one ship in relation to the enemy,’ i.e. ‘ the 
enemy succeeded in disabling one of their ships,’ not ‘the Athe- 
nians disabled one of the enemy’s ships.’ For in the latter case 
ἑτέραν ναῦν ἀπολλύουσι, ὃ 5 infra, must mean, ‘the Athenians disabled,’ 
not lost, ‘another ship,’ which is inconsistent with οὐκ ἔλασσον ἔχοντες 
οἱ Συρακόσιοι, ὃ 6. It is better therefore to read αὐτοί. 


καὶ pera τοῦτο τῶν Συρακοσίων ἐσβάντων és τὰς vais, καὶ παραπλεόντων 


ἀπὸ κάλω ἐς τὴν Μεσσήνην, αὖθις προσβαλόντες οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἀποσιμωσάν- 


. των ἐκείνων καὶ προεμβαλόντων, ἑτέραν ναῦν ἀπολλύουσι. καὶ ἐν τῷ παρ- 


ἄπλῳ καὶ τῇ ναὐμαχίᾳ τοιουτοτρόπῳ γενομένῃ οὐκ ἔλασσον ἔχοντες οἱ 
Συρακόσιοι παρεκομίσθησαν ἐς τὸν ἐν τῇ Μεσσήνῃ λιμένα. 

ἀποσιμωσάντων x.t.A. ‘The Syracusan ships, which were towed, 
and therefore more out of the reach of the Athenians, made a 
sudden turn outwards, and so struck an Athenian vessel before 
they could be struck themselves. By the words ἐν τῷ παράπλῳ οὐκ 
ἔλασσον ἔχοντες Thucydides implies that the success of the Syracusans 
was partly due to the manner in which their ships were towed from 
the shore. ἀποσιμῶσαι is explained by Suidas and by a grammarian 
(quoted in Classen) τὸ ἐπικύψαι καὶ τὴν πυγὴν προτεῖναι γυμνήν: SO 
here, ‘ turning round another part of the ship.’ 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 239 


“Khe expression οὐκ ἔλασσον ἔχοντες of Συρακόσιοι naturally suggests 25. 6. 

ξς the reader’s mind the memorable crisis in which the Syracusans 

ik>e@ <> ame more than a match for the Athenians. And this may 

Fa =u τῷ < been intended by the writer. οὐκ ἔλασσον : the Syracusans 

be =u <& rather the advantage, having taken two ships against one 
wer Em. στοῦ the Athenians had taken of theirs. 


-αττ ἢ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ ταῖς μὲν ναυσὶ περιπλεύσαντες κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ακεσίνην ποτα- 25. 8. 
FS χα... ὕτὴν γὴν ἐδήουν «7.2. 

“Ξεν “ιριπλεύσαντες͵ Sailing round a promontory, which projects from 
τ Ὧν <== coast south of Naxos, towards the river Acesines. Cp. for 
ἘΞ ιν —— absolute sense of περιπλεῖν viii. 34 init. ἡ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων στρατιὰ 
om ἀπ ss γαυσὶν ἐκ τοῦ Κωρύκου περιπλέουσα κατ᾽ ᾿Αργῖνον ἐπιτυγχάνει τρισὶ 
ee Ee 9} τῶν Χίων μακραῖς. 


—wois δὲ ἀφειδὴς ὁ κατάπλους καθεστήκει᾽ ἐπώκελλον γὰρ τὰ πλοῖα τετι- BB, 7. 
O23 > δσιιΐνα χρημάτων. 
The Athenians had to be careful of their ships; but the crews 
“-» XE" the boats which tried to land were reckless, because they were 
2m sured, 


ὁρῶντες τῶν τε ἐπιτηδείων τὴν περὶ τὴν Πελοπόννησον κομιδὴν ἀδύνατον ZT. 1 

= “απ μένην, ἅμα ἐν χωρίῳ ἐρήμῳ καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐν θέρει οἷοί re ὄντες ἱκανὰ 
-πριπέμπειν, τόν τε ἔφορμον χωρίων ἀλιμένων ὄντων οὐκ ἐσόμενον x.7.X. 

ἅμα ἐν χωρίῳ ἐρήμῳ: The words are to be loosely connected 
“with what precedes, as if οὖσιν or ὄντων were supplied. The deso- 
zation of the place was an additional reason why provisions were 
Wakely to fail, a reflection which naturally affected the mind of the 
“Athenians. The clause ἅμα ἐν χωρίῳ... περιπέμπειν is parenthetical. 


πάντων δὲ ἐφοβοῦντο μάλιστα τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, ὅτι ἔχοντάς τι ἰσ- 27. 2. 
γΧχυρὸν αὐτοὺς ἐνόμιζον οὐκέτι σφίσιν ἐπικηρυκεύεσθαι, 
‘Because they thought 1)* that the Lacedaemonians, having 
something to depend upon, were not likely any longer to negotiate,’ 
or ‘not in the way of negotiating, with them; or 2) ‘that the 
Lacedaemonians were not now negotiating with them, because 
they had something to depend upon.’ The Greek is in favour of 
2), which agrees better with the pres. ἐπικηρυκεύεσθαι, but the sense 


240 THUCYDIDES. 


97. 2. is not so good, for the fact that the Lacedaemonians sent no more 


27. 5. 


28. I. 


28. 4. 


embassies is too abruptly introduced. 


καὶ ἐς Νικίαν τὸν Νικηράτου, στρατηγὸν ὄντα, ἀπεσήμαινεν x.rA. | 
ἀπο- in ἀποσημαίνω, a8 in ἀποβλέπω, strengthens the meaning of the 
verb, ‘ He expressly pointed to Nicias.’ It may be to this occasion 
that the poet Phrynichus alludes,— 
ἦν γὰρ πολίτης ἀγαθός, ὡς εὖ οἶδ᾽ ἐγώ, 
κοὐχ ὑποταγεὶς ἐβάδιζεν ὥσπερ Νικίας. 
Meineke, Frag. Com. vol. ii. p. 603. 
Cp. Aristoph. Γεωργοί (Fragm. 156), Plut. Nic. viii,.— 
A, Ἐθέλω γεωργεῖν. Β. Εἶτά τις σε κωλύει ; 
A. ὑμεῖς, ᾿Επεὶ δίδωμι χιλίας δραχμὰς 
ἐάν με τῶν ἀρχῶν ἀφῆτε. Β, Δεχόμεθα" 
δισχίλιαι γάρ εἰσι σὺν ταῖς Νικίου. 
The latter words seem to imply that Nicias would pay any fine to 
get off a command. 
More express allusions to the whole affair occur in the Knights 
of Aristophanes, 54,— 
Demosth. καὶ πρώην γ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
μᾶζαν μεμαχότος ἐν Πύλῳ Λακωνικήν, 
πανουργότατά πὼς περιδραμὼν ὑφαρπάσας 
αὐτὸς παρέθηκε τὴν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ μεμαγμένην. 
Cp. also 391-394, quoted below, 702, 741-745, 1051 foll, 
1200-1201. 


ὁ δὲ Νικίας τῶν re ᾿Αθηναίων τι ὑποθυρυβησάντων és τὸν Κλέωνα, ὅ τι οὐ 
καὶ νῦν πλεῖ, εἰ ῥᾷδιόν γε αὐτῷ φαίνεται κιτιλ. 

Either 1)* ‘why he did not sail at once,’ or 2) ‘why he did not 
sail as it was,’ i.e. without being general. 

ὅ τι, ‘why,’ is more graphic than ὅτε, ‘that’ or ‘ because.’ 


λαβὼν ἐκ μὲν τῆς πόλεως οὐδένα, Λημνίους δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιμβρίους τοὺς παρόντας 
καὶ πελταστάς, οἱ ἦσαν ex τε Αἴνου βεβοηθηκότες, καὶ ἄλλοθεν τοξότας 
τετρακοσίους. 

ἔκ τε Αἴνου..... καὶ ἄλλοθεν, an anacoluthon, τέ, though answering 
to καί following, comes too late in the sentence. The words should 


NOTES, BOOK IV’. 241 


have run πελταστάς re οἱ ἦσαν ἐξ Aivou βεβοηθηκότες, καὶ ἄλλοθεν τοξότας 28. 4.. 
Τετρακοσίουςε. 


τῶν δὲ στρατιωτῶν ἀναγκασθέντων διὰ τὴν στενοχωρίαν τῆς νήσου τοῖς 80. 2. 
ἐσχάτοις προσίσχοντας ἀριστοποιεῖσθαι διὰ προφυλακῆς, καὶ ἐμπρήσαντός 
Twos κατὰ μικρὸν τῆς ὕλης ἄκοντος, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου πνεύματος ἐπιγενομένου, 
73 πολὺ αὐτῆς ἔλαθε κατακαυθέν. 

1) ἀπὸ τούτου may be out of place, being really connected with 
4AaGe. ἐμπρήσαντός τινος... καὶ πνεύματος ἐπιγενομένου... ἀπὸ τούτου ἔλαθε 
«ar ἀπ καυθέν. Or 2) καί may be used as if a finite verb had preceded, 
ἐν» ἔσχε. σε not ἐμπρήσαντος. Or 3)* placing a comma after τούτου, καὶ 
fra  rotrou=‘even from this trifling cause.’ Or 4) ἀπὸ rovrov= 
* afterwards.’ But this expression, though not uncommon in 

<2 odotus, is not to be found in Thucydides. 


“ὦ ὕτω δὴ τούς re Λακεδαιμονίους μᾶλλον κατιδὼν πλείους ὄντας, ὑπονοῶν 80. 3. 
oe F< Swi poy ἕλάσσοσι τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ ἐσπέμπειν, τό τε ὡς én’ ἀξιόχρεων τοὺς 
εν ναΐους μᾶλλον σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι, τήν τε νῆσον εὐαποβατωτέραν οὖσαν, 
ἜΣ oe ἐπιχείρησιν παρεσκευάζετο. 
@Fidcooos=‘ for a smaller number than they said,’ or ‘than now 
E> pened.’ 
1) αὐτοῦ, although we should have expected αὐτόσε, is probably 
ἘΞ -Ξὁ γ υἱης, arising out of a confusion of rest and motion not un- 
>< mmon in Greek. Cp. ἵνα wep rd πρῶτον ὥρμηντο in iv. 48 fin., 
“&: init. It must be admitted however that the confusion of motion 
“Sri th rest is less frequent than that of rest with motion. 
a) Dr. Kennedy, quoted by Mr. Graves (in his edition of Thucy- 
ἜΣ δες iv. 1-.-41) suggests a new and ingenious but not a probable 
=xplanation. _ He supposes αὐτοῦ to refer to σίτου. ‘For a smaller 
Ἄγ ΟΣ of men than the corn.’ But the order of the words is harsh ; 
and although the meaning given, ‘less than’ or ‘too few for’ the 
Gorn, is grammatical and a possible translation of the words, the 
idea, not being assisted by anything in the context, is too abruptly 


= 


Amtroduced. 
3) αὐτοὺς πέμπειν Or αὐτοὺς ἐσπέμπειν for αὐτοῦ ἐσπέμπειν iS an 
ingenious but unnecessary emendation. 


τότε. The MSS. read τότε. But if we are to avoid an asyndeton, 
VOL. I. R 


30. 3. 


32, 1. 


32. 4. 


33. 2. 


242 THUCYDIDES. 


which would be here inexcusable, δέ must be inserted after τότε, or 
τότε must be resolved into two words, τό re. τὸ ποιεῖσθαι is then 
governed by κατιδών, and is parallel to πλείους ὄντας, τὴν νῆσον ei- 
αποβατωτέραν οὖσαν. τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους Ξεῖῃς forces at Pylos, not the 
Athenians at home, who could not as yet have heard of the 
burning of the wood, or of the discovery which made the attempt 
better worth making. 


of δὲ Αθηναῖοι τοὺς μὲν πρώτους φύλακας, ois ἐπέδραμον, εὐθὺς διαφθεί- 
povow ἕν τε ταῖς εὐναῖς ἔτι ἀναλαμβάνοντας τὰ ὅπλα, καὶ λαθόντες τὴν 
ἀπόβασιν, οἱομένων αὐτῶν ras wavs κατὰ τὸ ἔθος ἐς ἔφορμον τῆς νυκτὸς 


πλεῖν. 
τέ answers to καί, joining ἐν ταῖς εὐναῖς (of which ἀναλαμβάνοντας τὰ 


ὅπλα is an explanation) with λαθόντες, although the subject of the 
two clauses is different. ‘The Athenians disembarking unobserved 
by the enemy ’=‘the enemy unconscious of their disembarkation.’ 
Classen compares Tacitus, Hist. i. 45, ‘ita simulatione irae vinciri 
tussum ef maiores poenas daturum adfirmans praesenti exitio 
subtraxit.’ 


κατὰ νώτου τε ἀεὶ ἔμελλον αὐτοῖς, ἦ χωρήσειαν, of πολέμιοι ἔσεσθαι ψιλοὶ 
καὶ οἱ ἀπορώτατοι, τοξεύμασι καὶ ἀκοντίοις καὶ λίθοις καὶ σφενδόναις ἐκ 
πολλοῦ ἔχοντες ἀλκήν. 

οἷ ἀπορώτατοι, not ‘the poorest class of citizens,’ and therefore the 
most poorly armed, but ‘the most difficult to deal with.’ 


τοὺς δὲ ψιλούς, 7} μάλιστα αὐτοῖς προσθέοντες προσκέοιντο, ἔτρεπον, καὶ 
οἱ ὑποστρέφοντες ἠμύνοντο, ἄνθρωποι κούφως τε ἐσκενασμένοι καὶ προλαμ- 
βάνοντες ῥᾳδίως τῆς φνγῆς, χωρίων τε χαλεπότητι καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς πρὶν ἐρημίας 
τραχέων ὄντων. 

1) καὶ οἱ ὑποστρέφοντες, ‘and those who retired defended them- 
selves.’ ‘That they retired again is implied in the preceding word 
ἔτρεπον. For similar uses of the article cp. iii. 63 fin. ὑμεῖς μὲν γὰρ 
ἀδικούμενοι αὐτούς, ὡς φατέ, ἐπηγάγεσθε, τοῖς δὲ ἀδικοῦσιν ἄλλους ξυνεργοὶ 
κατέστητε: 81 fin. τὴν μὲν αἰτίαν ἐπιφέροντες τοῖς τὸν δῆμον καταλύουσιν : 
v. 5 med. τούτοις οὖν ὁ Φαίαξ ἐντυχὼν τοῖς κομιζομένοις" οὐκ ἠδίκησεν: 
10 init. σημαίνειν τε ἅμα ἐκέλευεν ἀναχώρησιν, καὶ παρήγγειλε τοῖς ἀπιοῦσιν 


λ 4 Ld Ld « Ul > A - 3 4 
ἐπὶ τὸ εὐώνυμον κέρας... ὑπάγειν ἐπὶ τῆς ‘Hidvos. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 243 


"Two other passages, i. 69 init. of γὰρ δρῶντες βεβουλευμένοι πρὸς οὐ 88. 2. 
Bee-yructras, ἤδη καὶ ob μέλλοντες, ἐπέρχονται, Vi. 36 init. of γὰρ δεδιότες 
ἐδ da τι βούλονται τὴν πόλιν ἐς ἔκπληξιν καθιστάναι, in which the article 
camnot be explained from the preceding words, might seem to 

imdicate a less fixed use of it than occurs in later Greek, like that 
of the Homeric poems, in which 4, ἡ, τό, are used with a force 
greater than that of the article, but less than that of the demonstra- 
tive. But this use can be shown to occur in Thucydides only where 
Se follows (cp. iv. 26 fin. rote δὲ ἀφειδὴς ὁ κατάπλους καθεστήκει). It 
ἴα therefore better to take the article as referring to particular indi- 
vichuls or classes considered under a general aspect, ‘the men of 
Cmuergy,’ i.e. the Athenians, ‘those who have private reasons for 
alam,’ i.e. the Syracusan oligarchs. And some of the passages 
@oted above (iii. 63 fin., 81 fin.) may be explained in the same 
Way. 

_ 3) of, the old demonstrative pronoun, not οἱ, is required in 
TV. 68 fin. καταγορεύει rie ξυνειδὼς τοῖς ἑτέροις τὸ ἐπιβούλευμα' καὶ ot 
ἀθρόοι ἦλθον, where there is no antecedent to which the 
“©ticle can refer, and it may be the right reading in this place. Cp. 
_ en. Anab. vii. 6. 4, καὶ of εἶπον : Cyr. ν. 4. 4, καὶ ὃς ἐξαπατηθεὶς διώκει 
“>a μράτος : and the stereotyped phrases ἦ 3° &s—s μέν, ὃς δέ---καὶ ὅς. 
κούφως τε... ὄντων, τέ may be joined either 1)* with καί, before 
ολαμβάνοντες, in which case the second τέ belongs to καί after 
X@Aewsryr, or 2) with τέ after χωρίων : either τ)" the Athenians were 
Ἐν armed and easily outran their pursuers by reason of the 
Fifficulty of the country, etc.: or 2) they readily retreated and de- 
themselves, because they were lightly armed, etc., and by 

T€agon of the difficulty of the country. 


&al αὐτοὶ τῇ τε ὄψει τοῦ θαρσεῖν τὸ πλεῖστον εἷἱληφότες, πολλαπλάσιοι 84. 1. 
“TD, 

The last words are the resumption of τῇ ὄψει. 1) ‘ Receiving the 
Breatest encouragement from their own eyes, they appearing to 
themselves many times the number of the enemy ;’ i.e. ‘ from their 
©wn eyes which showed them their superiority in numbers.’ Or 2) 

* from their being able to see around them ;’ i.e. from the burning 
Of the wood, cp. supra c. 30 init. 


R 2 


94. 3. 


36, 2. 


36. 3. 


244 THUCYDIDES. 


ἀποκεκλῃμένοι μὲν τῇ ὄψει τοῦ προορᾶν κιτιλ. 
Lit. ‘ prevented in their sight from looking before them.’ τῇ 
is opposed to ἐσακούοντες above, and is supplemented by τοῦ προι 


ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπέραντον ἦν, προσελθὼν ὁ τῶν Μεσσηνίων στρατηγὸς KA 
καὶ Δημοσθένει ἄλλως ἔφη πονεῖν σφᾶς" εἰ δὲ βούλονται ἑαντῷ δοῦναι 
τοξοτῶν μέρος τι καὶ τῶν Ψιλῶν περιιέναι κατὰ νώτου αὐτοῖς ὁδῷ, 7 ἂν a 
εὕρῃ, δοκεῖν βιάσασθαι τὴν ἔφοδον. 

The accusative (σφᾶς) is used because the subject is chan 
from the singular to the plural, the reflexive pronoun because 
Messenian leader regards himself as a part of the Athenian ar 
He said, ‘ Our troops are labouring in vain.’ Cp. vi. 49. 2 and n 

περιιέναι, infin. of purpose, after δοῦναι, ‘if they were willing 
give him a few archers and light-armed troops for him to find a’ 
round,’ etc. 


κατὰ τὸ del παρεῖκον τοῦ κρημνώδους τῆς νήσου προσβαίνων καὶ 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι χωρίον ἰσχύϊ πιστεύσαντες οὐκ ἐφύλασσον «TA. 

κατὰ τὸ ἀεί x.r.d., ‘wherever the cliff allowed him a footing ;’ » 
is added in explanation of τοῦ κρημνώδους, ‘and by a way which 
Lacedaemonians had left unguarded.’ 


καὶ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι βαλλόμενοί re ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἤδη καὶ γιγνόμενι 
τῷ αὐτῷ ξυμπτώματι, ὡς μικρὸν μεγάλῳ εἰκάσαι, τῷ ἐν Θερμοπύλαις, xi 
τε γὰρ τῇ ἀτραπῷ περιελθόντων τῶν Περσῶν διεφθάρησαν, οὗτοΐ τε a; 
βολοι ἤδη ὄντες οὐκέτι ἀντεῖχον, ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς τε ὀλίγοι μαχόμενοι 
ἀσθενείᾳ σωμάτων διὰ τὴν σιτοδείαν ὑπεχώρουν᾽ καὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐκρά 
ἤδη τῶν ἐφόδων. 

An anacoluthon; grammatically, there is no verb followin; 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι βαλλόμενοι : the end of the sentence is absorbed in 
illustration ἐκεῖνοί re x.r.A. But the required thought is supplie 
the words ovxére ἀντεῖχον x.7.X, 

Poppo places the words ἐκεῖνοί re... οὗτοί re in ἃ parenth 
omitting the comma after διεφθάρησαν. ‘For the men of Τὶ] 
mopylae were destroyed when the Persians found the path ro 
the mountain; and so were these men,’—repeating διεφθάρη 
But (a) it is impossible to separate οὗτοί re from ἀμφίβολοι wl 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 245 


follows ; and (δ) διεφθάρησαν does not describe the fate of the 36. 3. 


Spartans at Sphacteria who, instead of falling, surrendered. 

In remarking on the similarity of the circumstances Thucydides 
may have intended to contrast the behaviour of the Spartans at 
Thermopylae and the Spartans at Sphacteria (διεφθάρησαν, -- οὐκέτι 
ἀντεῖχον ἀλλ᾽ ὑπεχώρουν). 


ἀπιστοῦντές τε μὴ εἶναι τοὺς παραδόντας τοῖς τεθνεῶσιν ὁμοίους, καΐ τινος 40. 2. 


ἐρομένου ποτὲ ὕστερον τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ξυμμάχων δι ἀχθηδόνα ἕνα τῶν ἐκ τῆς 
νήσου αἰχμαλώτων εἰ οἱ τεθνεῶτες αὐτῶν καλοὶ κἀγαθοί, ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ 
πολλοῦ ἂν ἄξιον εἶναι τὸν ἄτρακτον (λέγων τὸν ὀϊστόν), εἰ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς 
δεεγέἔγνωσκε, δήλωσιν ποιούμενος ὅτι & ἐντυγχάνων τοῖς τε λίθοις καὶ τοξεύ- 
βαισιν διεφθείρετο. 
ἀπιστοῦντες has no verb, and may be called, in the language of 
the old grammarians, a nominative absolute. ‘The general dis- 
belief in the courage of the survivors elicited the following answer.’ 
@rpacros, an uncommon word in the sense of ‘an arrow,’ found 
however in Soph. Phil. 290, Trach. 714; Eur. Rhes. 312, and re- 
tained in mediaeval Greek (Ducange). Either 1) it was the Laco- 
Mian word for an arrow (of which however there is no evidence), 


Or 2)* it is here used contemptuously by the Lacedaemonians in its — 


Ordinary sense. In either case the word would have suggested 
‘a Spindle’ to Athenian ears. 

For the wonder and curiosity with which the Spartan captives 
must have been received at Athens compare Aristoph. Clouds, 
ΙδΒα, 

ΣΤ. ὦ Ἡράκλεις, ταυτὶ ποδαπὰ τὰ θηρία ; 

ΜΑΘ. τί ἐθαύμασας ; τῷ σοι δοκοῦσιν εἰκέναι ; 

ΣΤ. τοῖς ἐκ Πύλου ληφθεῖσι, τοῖς Λακωνικοῖς. 

©p. also Knights, 391-394,— 

ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὗτος τοιοῦτος ὧν ἅπαντα τὸν βίον, 
κᾷτ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἔδοξεν εἶναι, τἀλλότριον ἀμῶν θέρος. 
νῦν δὲ τοὺς στάχυς ἐκείνους, abs ἐκεῖθεν ἤγαγεν, 
ἐν ξύλῳ δήσας ἀφαύει κἀποδόσθαι βούλεται. 


S φνητυγχάνων, ‘the chance or average man, not the specially 


brave 


=A πν re τὴν Λακωνικὴν καὶ πλεῖστα ἔβλαπτον ὁμόφωνοι ὄντες. 


246 THUCYDIDES. 


43.2. For a similar advantage gained by the employment of the= 
Messenians at the battle of Idomené cp. iii. 112 med. 


41. 4. οἱ δὲ μειζόνων re dpéyovro, καὶ πολλάκις φοιτώντων αὐτοὺς ἀπράκτονω;»ε 
ἀπέπεμπον. 
Cp. Aristoph. Knights, 794,— 
AA. ᾿Αρχεπτολέμου δὲ φέροντος 
τὴν εἰρήνην ἐξεσκέδασας, τὰς πρεσβείας τ᾽ ἀπελαύνειε 
ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ῥαθαπυγίζων, αἱ τὰς σπονδὰς προκαλοῦνται. 
e Peace, 215,— 
εἰ 8 αὖ τι πράξαιτ᾽ ἀγαθὸν ἁττικωνικοὶ 
κἄλθοιεν οἱ Λάκωνες εἰρήνης πέρι, 
ἐλέγετ᾽ ἂν ὑμεῖς εὐθύς" ἐξαπατώμεθα 
νὴ τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν, νὴ Δί᾽, οὐχὶ πειστέον" 
ἥξουσι καὖθις, ἣν ἔχωμεν τὴν Πύλον. 
665,— 
ἐλθοῦσά φησιν αὐτομάτη μετὰ ray Πύλῳ 
σπονδῶν φέρουσα τῇ πόλει κίστην πλέαν 
ἀποχειροτονηθῆναι τρὶς ἐν τἠκκλησίᾳ. 


42. 2. πλέοντες δέ, ἅμα ἕῳ ἔσχον μεταξὺ Χερσονήσου τε καὶ Ῥείτου ἃς τὸν“ 
αἰγιαλὸν τοῦ χωρίου ὑπὲρ οὗ ὁ Σολύγειος λόφος ἐστίν. 

The context shows that ἅμα ἕῳ is to be taken with ἔσχον, not = 
with πλέοντε. Cp. ὡς δὲ αὐτοὺς ἔλαθον νυκτὸς καταπλεύσαντες, - 
infra § 4. 

és τὸν αἰγιαλόν κιτιλ. lit. ‘to the beach of the district which the 
Solygeian ridge overhangs.’ 

Cenchreae lay on the coast about two miles south of the narrow- 
est part of the Isthmus. Α little to the south of Cenchreae a spur 
of Mount Oneium comes down to the sea. In the neighbourhood 
was situated the ‘Chersonesus’ mentioned by Thucydides, the stream 
Rheitus being further to the south. The Athenians landed about 
two miles to the south of Cenchreae; near which place the Corin- 
thians, who had missed their place of landing, were awaiting them. 
Leaving half their forces at Cenchreae to protect Crommyon, a 
town on the coast about nine miles to the north-east (which was 
attacked by the Athenian fleet after the battle and plundered, c. 45 
init.), and detaching another division under Battus to protect 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 247 


Solygeia, a village somewhere on the hill south of Mount Oneium, 42. 2. 
beneath which the Athenians landed, the Corinthians hurried to 

Meet the enemy. But owing to the interposition of Mount Oneium 

the engagement which followed was not perceived by the other half 

of the Corinthian army stationed at Cenchreae until the dust began 

to rise. Corinth, from which the reinforcements came, was about 

seven miles north-west of the scene of action. 


Κορίνθιοι δὲ προπυθόμενοι ἐξ “Apyous ὅτι ἡ στρατιὰ ἥξει τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, 42, 3. 
€s. πλείονος ἐβοήθησαν ἐς ᾿Ισθμὸν πάντες πλὴν τῶν ἔξω Ἰσθμοῦ. 
ἐξ "Ἄργους. Cp. note on ν. 28. 2. 
ἐκ πλείονος, either 1)* with ἐβοήθησαν, answering to πρό in προπυ- 
Oyen, ‘having heard beforehand, they had come some time 
before,’ or 2) with προπυθόμενοι ; cp. iii. 100 init. προπέμψαντες πρό- 
Ἔν «ρον ἔς τε Κόρινθον καὶ ἐς Λακεδαίμονα πρέσβεις. 


δύο γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν τῇ μάχῃ οἱ παρόντες. 48. 1. 
Not strictly ‘in the battle,’ for it does not appear that Battus 
“wwas engaged, but ‘on the occasion of the battle.’ 


τὸ δὲ ἄλλο στρατόπεδον ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἐμάχετο ξυνεχῶς. 43. 5. 
‘Fought steadily or continuously,’ i.e. without such vicissitudes of 
۩ ortune as had befallen the Athenian right wing. 


ἦσαν γὰρ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις οἱ ἱππεῖς ὠφέλιμοι ξυμμαχόμενοι, τῶν ἑτέρων 44. 1. 
«οὐκ ἐχόντων ἵππους. 

Cp. the famous parabasis in the Knights of Aristophanes, 595- 
©10, in which the services of the horses on this occasion are duly 
<ommemorated. 


ἐν δὲ τῇ τροπῇ ταύτῃ κατὰ τὸ δεξιὸν κέρας of πλεῖστοί τε αὐτῶν ἀπέ- 44, 2 
θανον καὶ Δυκόφρων ὅ στρατηγός. ἡ δὲ ἄλλη στρατιὰ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ 
οὐ κατὰ δίωξιν πολλὴν οὐδὲ ταχείας φυγῆς γενομένης, ἐπεὶ ἐβιάσθη, ἐπανα- 
χωρήσασα πρὸς τὰ μετέωρα ἱδρύθη. 

τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ, ‘in this manner,’ i.e. ‘ under these circumstances,’ 
‘because the right wing was defeated.’ 


τῶν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ πείθουσί τινας ὀλίγους, ὑποπέμψαντες φίλους καὶ διδάξ- 46. 5. 


48. 5. 


47.1. 


47. 2. 


248 THUCYDIDES. 


avres ὡς κατ᾽ εὔνοιαν δὴ λέγειν, ὅτι κράτιστον αὐτοῖς εἴη ὡς τάχιστα 
ἀποδρᾶναι, πλοῖον δέ τι αὐτοὶ ἑτοιμάσειν. 
1)" ὡς κατ᾽ εὕνοιαν δή qualifies διδάξαντες, not λέγεν. The friends 


οἵ the captives went in good faith to them and told them 
‘what they had been made to believe by the leaders of the de- 


mocracy. The perfidy (87) was that of the persons who instructed 
them. 

Or possibly 2) φίλους refers to persons who had been friends of 
the oligarchs but had now come under the influence of the 
democrats. 

αὐτοί, the democratic leaders. 


ὡς δὲ ἔπεισαν, καὶ μηχανησαμένων τὸ πλοῖον ἐκπλέοντες ἐλήφθησαν 


κιλ. 


μηχανησαμένων, scil. the democratic leaders acting perfidiously, in 
concert with the friends of the captives, who acted in good faith. 


ξυνελάβοντο δὲ τοῦ τοιούτου οὐχ ἥκιστα, στε ἀκριβῆ τὴν πρόφασιν 
γενέσθαι, καὶ τοὺς τεχνησαμένους ἀδεέστερον ἐγχειρῆσαι, οἱ στρατηγοὶ τῶν 
᾿Αθηναίων, κατάδηλοι ὄντες τοὺς ἄνδρας μὴ ἂν βούλεσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων κομι- 
σθέντας, διότι αὐτοὶ ἐς Σικελίαν ἔπλεον, τὴν τιμὴν τοῖς ἄγουσι προσ- 
ποιῆσαι. 

ὥστε ἀκριβὴ κι. 1)* lit. ‘so that the pretext was strict,’ or 
‘exact.’ The word ἀκριβῆ which, properly speaking, refers to the 
interpretation of the agreement, is inaccurately applied to the 
πρόφασις, because the interpretation of the agreement, regarded 
from another point of view, was the ‘pretext’ for delivering the 
prisoners up to the Corcyraeans. Or in other words, the pretext is 
called ‘strict’ because it was founded on a strict interpretation 
of the agreement. 

Or 2) πρόφασις referring to the pretext by which the prisoners 
were induced to leave the island, ‘ that the pretext should precisely 
accord with,’ or ‘ be justified by, the facts ;’ meaning either a) that 
‘the chief reason which made the false pretext turn out to be the 
actual truth,’ i.e. which realised the fear "οἵ the Corcyraean 
oligarchs that they would be given up to the people, ‘was the 
known disinclination of the Athenian generals,’ etc., or δ) that ‘the 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 249 


chief reason which made the pretext appear satisfactory to the 47. 2. 


Prasoners was,’ etc. 


sFeaotryopdpa τε παριόντες ἐπετάχυνον τῆς ὁδοῦ τοὺς σχολαίτερον προσ- 47, 3. 


eSe-r-as. 


wsapivres, ‘walking by their side:’ τοὺς σχολαίτερον προσιόντας, 
& oy poy προσ 


* tkhose who lingered on the way thither,’ i.e. to the place where 
the two rows of hoplites were stationed. 


scare ἐς μὲν ἄνδρας ἑξήκοντα ἔλαθον τοὺς ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ 48. 1. 


ἐξεΣ γεα γόντες καὶ διαφθείραντες Govro γὰρ αὐτοὺς μεταστήσαντάς ποι 
GAA con ἄγειν. 


“Khe aor. μεταστήσαντας, the reading of all the MSS., may be 


de fe mded on the ground that it is the historical tense, as we might 

SAY pgacrécrycay αὐτοὺς καὶ ἦγον (cp. note on iv. 112. 1). The tense 

TYlAz@wy also be explained as describing not the completion, but the 
<1 mning, of the act of removal. 


Fre ἄλλοσε goes with μεταστήσαντας, but is to be repeated with 


Sec ἔλευον σφᾶς, εἰ βούλονται, αὐτοὺς διαφθεῖραι. 48.1. 
«χιῶ τούς, scil. the Athenians, σφᾶς, the Corcyreans. 


«»οΣ δὲ Κερκυραῖοι κατὰ μὲν τὰς θύρας οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὶ διενοοῦντο βιάζεσθαι. 48. 2. 
ὑδέ----“ΤΏς populace had no more idea of forcing their way in 


thay the captives had of letting them in.’ 


«οἱ δὲ ἐφυλάσσοντό re ὡς ἠδύναντο καὶ ἅμα of πολλοὶ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς 48. 3. 


Ὁ. ἔφθειρον, ὀϊστούς τε οὺς ἀφίεσαν ἐκεῖνοι ἐς τὰς σφαγὰς καθιέντες, καὶ ἐκ 


ΝΑ εἐχῶν τινων αἱ ἔτυχον αὐτοῖς ἐνοῦσαι ταῖς σπάρτοις καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἱματίων 
Wapaiphpara ποιοῦντες ἀπαγχόμενοι, παντὶ τρόπῳ τὸ πολὺ τῆς νυκτός, 
ἐγε eyivero γὰρ νὺξ τῷ παθήματι, ἀναλοῦντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ βαλλόμενοι 

ὃ πὸ τῶν ἄνω διεφθάρησαν. 

The participles καθιέντες, ἀπαγχόμενοι, clearly belong to σφάς 
αὐτοὺς διέφθειρον, not to διεφθάρησαν, and therefore τέ after ὀϊστούς ᾿ 
cannot supply the connection between the two finite verbs, but 
must answer to καί following. The asyndeton before παντὶ τρόπῳ 


48. 3. 


40. 


6O. 1. 


60, 32. 


250 THUCYDIDES. 


may be explained either as a resumption, or from the vehemence 
of the expression, or from the numerous participles which make the 
writer forget that a finite verb has preceded. For a like asyndeton 
caused by the passion of the speaker cp. ili. 59. 2 and note. 

mapatpnpara ποιοῦντες -- παραιρήμασι, parallel to τοῖς omdpross. 

ἀναλοῦντες iS a conjecture of Heilmann, supported by the trans- 
lation of Valla, and is confirmed in some degree by the authority 
of the ancient grammarians, who quote the participle ἀναλοῦντες as 
occurring in Thucydides in the sense of ἀναιροῦντες, although not 
found in our extant MSS. The reading of the MSS., ἀναδοῦντες, 
is far inferior in sense, and can only be defended if the words ἀνα- 
δοῦντες σφᾶς αὐτούς be taken as a resumption of ἀπαγχόμενοι; they 
would then describe the most striking though not the only way in 
which the prisoners killed themselves. ‘In every sort of way, some 
tying themselves up, others hit by their enemies from above, they 
perished.’ Such a repetition of one of the particulars after the 
words παντὶ τρόπῳ is extremely harsh. And the change of reading 
from ἀναδοῦντες to ἀναλοῦντες, A to A, is the least possible. 

It is remarkable that the instinctive love of life 1) led some of 
them to shelter themselves (ἐφυλάσσοντο), while others only sought 
to put an end to their own lives: or 2)* led them to seek shelter 
from the enemy while putting an end to their own lives. 


αὐτοὶ ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες οἰκήτορες ἀπὸ πάντων ἔσχον τὸ χωρίον. 

This circumstance seems to be mentioned as a contrast to that 
related in ii 30, of δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἑκατὸν ναυσὶν ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἔτι ὄντες περὶ 
Πελοπόννησον Σόλλιόν τε Κορινθίων πόλισμα αἱροῦσι καὶ παραδιδόασι 
Πυλαιρεῦσιν ᾿Ακαρνάνων μόνοις τὴν γῆν καὶ πόλιν νέμεσθαι. 


τῶν ἀργυρολόγων νεῶν. .. αἱ ἐξεπέμφθησαν πρὸς τοὺς ξυμμάχους. 

Sent to collect arrears, or to exact extraordinary contributions. 
The regular φόρος appears to have been paid at Athens, at the 
Great Dionysia (Boeckh, Staatshaush. i. p. 243). 


καὶ αὐτοῦ κομισθέντος οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὰς μὲν ἐπιστολὰς μεταγραψάμενοι 
ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ασσυρίων γραμμάτων ἀνέγνωσαν. 
ἐκ τῶν ᾿Λσσυρίων γραμμάτων, i.e. the cuneiform characters ; which 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 251 


the Persians employed in their public inscriptions (Herod. iv. 87), 50. 2. 
43ηησάμενος δὲ καὶ τὸν Βόσπορον (ὁ Δαρεῖος) στήλας ἔστησε δύο én’ αὐτῷ 
wribou λευκοῦ, ἐνταμὼν γρά , ἐς μὲν τὴν ᾿Ασσύρια, ἐς δὲ τὴν Ἑλληνικά, 

«θνεα πάντα ὅσαπερ ἦγε.) as here in ἃ public document. They were, 

an various forms, the common alphabet of several languages. 


ποιησάμενοι μέντοι πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους πίστεις καὶ βεβαιότητα ἐκ τῶν δ]. I. 
“δυνατῶν μηδὲν περὶ σφᾶς νεώτερον βουλεύσειν. 

Not ‘ having given pledges and securities to the Athenians,’ which 
is inconsistent with the word μέντοι, but ‘having effected’ or 
‘gained pledges and securities.’ Cp. ἄδειαν ποιησάμενον, ‘having 
obtained a promise of pardon,’ vi. 60 med. 


καὶ Fv αὐτῶν ἡ διάνοια τάς re ἄλλας πόλεις τὰς ᾿Ακταίας καλουμένας, 52, 3. 
ἃς πρότερον Μντιληναίων νεμομένων ᾿Αθηναῖοι εἶχον, ἐλευθεροῦν, καὶ πάντων 
μάλιστα τὴν ᾿Αν»τανδρον, καὶ κρατυνάμενοι αὐτήν, (ναῦς τε γὰρ εὐπορία ἦν 
ποιέϊσθαι αὐτόθεν, ξύλων ὑπαρχόντων καὶ τῆς Ἴδης ἐπικειμένης, καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ 
σκευγ), ῥᾳδίως an’ αὐτῆς ὁρμώμενοι τήν τε Λέσβον ἐγγὺς οὖσαν κακώσειν 
καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἠπείρῳ Αἰολικὰ πολίσματα χειρώσασθαι. 

κρατυνάμενοι, as if διενοοῦντο instead of ἦν ἡ διάνοια had preceded. 

ναῦς re... oxevg. The second καί follows τέ: either 1) the con- 

Struction changes from the infinitive to the dative, ἦν εὐπορία ποιεῖσθαι 
ναῦς, ἦν εὐπορία τῇ ἄλλῃ oxevg: ‘There was a facility for building 
ships ; there was a facility for (obtaining) other supplies:’ or 2)* 
sal τῇ ἄλλῃ σκευῇ follows as if ναυσί had preceded, and is connected 
With κακώσειν. σκευῇ, the reading of all the MSS., not occurring 
elsewhere in Thucydides in this sense, has been corrected without 
Mecessity into παρασκευῇ. 


ἦν γὰρ αὐτοῖς τῶν re dn’ Αἰγύπτου καὶ Λιβύης ὁλκάδων προσβολή, καὶ 58. 3. 
λῃσταὶ ἅμα τὴν Λακωνικὴν ἧσσον ἐλύπουν ἐκ θαλάσσης, ἥπερ μόνον οἷόν τ᾽ 
ἦν κακουργεῖσθαι"' πᾶσα γὰρ ἀνέχει πρὸς τὸ Σικελικὸν καὶ Κρητικὸν 
πέλαγος. 

1)* The only danger of the Lacedaemonians was from attacks 
by sea, πᾶσα γάρ κιτὰλ., for their whole country, running out into the 
Sicilian and Cretan seas, is exposed to piracy. 

Or 2) ἀνέχει may refer to the island, and γάρ may explain, not 


δ8. . 


δά. I. 


δά. 3. 


252 THUCYDIDES. 


why Lacedaemon was exposed to attack, but why it was protected 
by Cythera; ‘for the whole island runs far out into the two seas,’ 
so that a guard posted there can keep watch over both coasts. 

3) Mr. Grote suggests another interpretation. He would trans- 
late, ‘The whole Laconian coast is high projecting cliff where it 
fronts the Sicilian and Cretan seas.’ He supposes Thucydides to 
mean that Cythera protects the only vulnerable point of Laconia, 
the inner part of the Laconian gulf. 

But a) would the whole of the north coast of the Laconian gulf 
be described as if it were a point, ἥπερ, at which Laconia is vulner- 
able? Or δ) is it likely that prep is separable from 6aAdcoy? And 
c) too much meaning is attributed to ἀνέχει. 

Compare for the importance of Cythera to the enemies of Sparta, 
and therefore to Sparta, Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 7, φοβούμενος δὲ τήν τε 
ἀλιμενότητα τῆς χώρας, καὶ τὰ τῆς βοηθείας, καὶ τὰ τῆς σπανοσιτίας (scil. 
ὁ Φαρνάβαζός τε καὶ ὁ Κόνων), ταχύ τε ἀνέστρεψε καὶ ἀποπλέων ὡρμίσθη τῆς 
Κυθηρίας εἰς Φοινικοῦντα, and the saying of Chilon in Herod. vii. 235, 
Κύθηρα, τὴν Χίλων, ἀνὴρ map’ ἡμῖν σοφώτατος γενόμενος, κέρδος μέζον 
ἔφη εἶναι Σπαρτιήτῃσι κατὰ τῆς θαλάσσης καταδεδυκέναι μᾶλλον ἣ ὑπερ- 


ἐχειν. 


κατασχόντες οὖν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τῷ στρατῷ δέκα μὲν ναυσὶ καὶ δισχιλίοις 
Μιλησίων ὁπλίταις τὴν ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ πόλιν Σκάνδειαν καλουμένην αἱροῦσι. 

δισχιλίοις Seems to be an error of the MSS.; cp. supra c. 53 init., 
where it is the number of the Athenian hoplites, and viii. 25 init., 
where the Milesians, close to their own city, bring only 800 hoplites 
into the field. 


διὸ καὶ θᾶσσον καὶ ἐπιτηδειότερον τό τε παραυτίκα καὶ τὸ ἔπειτα τῆς 
ὁμολογίας ἐπράχθη αὐτοῖς" ἀνέστησαν γὰρ ἂν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι Κυθηρίους. 

‘Both the immediate and the subsequent steps in the agreement 
(cp. c. 57 fin.) were more quickly settled, and the terms were milder,’ 
There is no need to insert τά before τῆς ὁμολογίας against nearly 
all the MSS., since the Greek admits of the above explanation. 
᾿ ἄν must be inserted after ἀνέστησαν against the MSS., for here we 
are compelled to desert their authority; ἄν can only be omitted in 
an apodosis of which the protasis is expressed. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 253 


pera δὲ τὴν ξύμβασιν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τήν τε Σκάνδειαν τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ λιμένι 64. 4. | 
“πόλισμα παραλαβόντες καὶ τῶν Κυθήρων φυλακὴν ποιησάμενοι κιτὰλ. 

παραλαβόντες, taking the government of Scandeia from the 
Cytherians. The word seems to imply that they had not imme- 
diately after their victory taken formal possession of the place, 
which was now handed over to them. 


ἔς re τὰ πολεμικά, εἴπερ ποτέ, μάλιστα δὴ ὀκνηρότεροι ἐγένοντο. . δ. 2. 
ὀκνηρότεροι, 1) the comparative has a qualifying force, ‘inclined to 
hesitation,’ rather than ‘ more hesitating,’ as the cumbrous addition 
of μάλιστα δή shows; ‘more than ever.’ Or 2) lit. ‘ more hesitating 
than usual, in a higher degree than ever.’ 


καὶ τούτῳ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους, οἷς rd μὴ ἐπιχειρούμενον ἀεὶ ἔλλιπὲς ἦν τῆς BG. 2. 
δοκήσεώς τι πράξειν. 

“Τὸ whom anything which they ever failed to attempt always 
left a void in their aspiring thoughts.’ dei, though adhering to the 
participle, is to be supplied again with the verb. Cp. i. 70 med. 
ἃ ἂν ἐπινοήσαντες μὴ ἐξέλθωσιν, οἰκεῖα στέρεσθαι ἡγοῦνται: iv. 63 init. τὸ 
ἐλλιπὲς τῆς γνώμης ὧν ἕκαστός τι φήθημεν πράξειν. 


τοῖς δὲ ᾿Αθηναίοις τότε τὴν παραθαλάσσιον δῃοῦσι τὰ μὲν πολλὰ ἡσύ- 58. 1, 
χασαν, ὡς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην φρουρὰν γίγνοιτό τις ἀπόβασις, πλήθει τε ἐλάσσους 
ἕκαστοι ἡγούμενοι εἶναι καὶ ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ. 

τοῖς δὲ ᾿Αθηναίοις is a dative of relation after ἡσύχασαν. The con- 
struction, which is somewhat feeble, is supported by ὡς γένοιτό τις 
ἀπόβασις. 

ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ, ‘under such circumstances and in such depression 
of mind;’ scil. ἡσύχασαν, answering, though in a different construc- 
tion, to ἐλάσσους ἡγούμενοι εἶναι. 


τὸν ἄρχοντα ὃς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἦν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, Τάνταλον τοῦ §7, 4. 
Πατροκλέους. 

Although the Lacedaemonian troops retired to a place of safety, 
the Lacedaemonian governor of Thyrea remained in the town. __ 


Ἑρμοκράτης ὁ Ἕρμωνος, Συρακόσιος, ὅσπερ καὶ ἔπεισε μάλιστα αὐτούς. 68. 
See note on English text. 


60. I. 


254 THUCYDIDES. 


αὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα el μὴ καιρῷ τύχοιεν ἑκάτεροι πράσσοντες, al παραινέσεις 
τῶν ξυναλλαγῶν ὠφέλιμοι. ὃ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ παρόντι πειθομένοις πλείστου 
ἂν ἄξιον γένοιτο. τὰ γὰρ ἴδια ἕκαστοι εὖ βουλενόμενοι δὴ θέσθαι τό τε 
πρῶτον ἐπολεμήσαμεν καὶ νῦν πρὸς ἀλλήλους δι᾽ ἀντιλογιῶν πειρώμεθα 
καταλλαγῆναι, καὶ ἣν ἄρα μὴ προχωρήσῃ ἴσον ἑκάστῳ ἔχοντι ἀπελθεῖν, πάλιν 
πολεμήσομεν. καίτοι γνῶναι χρή, ὅτι οὐ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων μόνον, εἰ σωφρονοῦ- 
μεν, ἡ ξύνοδος ἔσται, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἐπιβουλενομένην τὴν πᾶσαν Σικελίαν, ὡς 
ἐγὼ κρίνω, ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων δυνησόμεθα ἔτι διασῶσαι. 

8, ‘which thing,’ either ‘proposals of reconciliation,’ or ‘the 
recognition of their utility.” The connection may be traced as 
follows :— 

Either 1) the words ra γὰρ ἴδια κιτιλ, are subordinate to καίτοι 
γνῶναι χρή three lines below: ‘Counsels of peace will be useful to 
us; for hitherto, whether in going to war or in making peace, 
we have been considering only our own individual interests, and 
our peace was hollow. But there is a higher light in which the 
question should be regarded, namely, that of the common good.’ 

Or 2), ‘Counsels of peace are useful to men when they 
are pursuing their own interests out of season. And they will 
be useful to us. For this is precisely what we are doing. But 
surely we ought to be thinking, not of our own interests, but of the 
common good.’ 


ot δύναμιν ἔχοντες μεγίστην τῶν Ἑλλήνων ras τε ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν τηροῦσιν, 
ὀλίγαις ναυσὶ παρόντες, καὶ ὀνόματι ἐννόμῳ ξυμμαχίας τὸ φύσει πολέμιον 
εὐπρεπῶς ἐς τὸ ξυμφέρον καθίστανται. 

ὀλίγαις ναυσί. Yet the Athenians had more than fifty ships in 
Sicily (cp. iv. 2 init., 25 init.) But Thucydides, by the mouth of 
Hermocrates, is here contrasting the earlier expeditions of the 
Athenians to Sicily with the great and fatal expedition. 

ὑνόματι ἐννόμῳ x.t.A. Either 1)" the Athenians are the natural 
enemies of Sicily, but by ‘ disguising their enmity under the honour- 
able name of an alliance,’ an alliance such as they have made with 
some of the cities in Sicily, ‘they speciously turn this enmity to 
their own interest.’ It is a proof of the insincerity of the Athe- 
nians that they convert what, if they were straightforward, would 
be enmity, to their own advantage. Or 2) τὸ φύσει πολέμιον may 


NOTES, BOOK IV. | 255 


Ihaaw a concrete sense, ‘they turn their natural enemies to good 60. 1. 
account’ 


πε ύλεμον γὰρ αἱρομένων ἡμῶν καὶ ἐπαγομένων αὐτούς, ἄνδρας οἷ καὶ τοὺς 60. 2. 
Βα. ὴ ἀἐξκικαλουμένους αὐτοὶ ἐπιστρατεύουσι, κακῶς τε ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ποιούντων 
we Reni τοῖς οἰκείοις κιτ.λ. 

«ἴχιστρατεύουσι. ἐπί- in composition seems to be used, like the 
Pre position by itself, in the sense of ‘to’ as well as ‘ against.’ 
“ Who go with an amy even to those who do not invite them.’ 
Compare ii. 67 init. στρατεῦσαι ἐπὶ τὴν Ποτίδαιαν, i.e. to relieve 
Potidaea: iv. 85 med. ἀλλὰ καί, οἷς ἂν ἐπίω, ἧσσόν τις ἐμοὶ πρόσεισι, 
Svc χερὸὲς ποιούμενοι εἰ ἐπὶ οὖς πρῶτον ἦλθον ὑμᾶς... μὴ ἐδέξασθε : and 
V- 1110, τράποιντ᾽ ἂν... ἐπὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς τῶν ξυμμάχων, ὅσους μὴ Βρασίδας 
ἐπε λθεν. For the acc. cp. iv. 92 med. ἡσυχάζοντα... ἐπιστρατεύειν. 

“I here may be a touch of irony in the expression, for the one 
MeCaniing of ἐπιστρατεύουσι suggests the other. If the Athenians 


ἕο -wwhere they are not wanted their movement is really hostile, not 
frien diy. 


WF hs ἀρχῆς ἅμα προκοπτόντων ἐκείνοις «7.2. 60. 2. 
_ ἜΓΨ ἀρχῆς is best explained as ἃ partitive genitive, lit.‘ cutting out 

' Sacdvance for them a portion of their empire,’ i.e. ‘ preparing the 
Way for an extension of their empire.’ 


νομίσαι τε στάσιν μάλιστα φθείρειν ras πόλεις καὶ τὴν Σικελίαν. θ1. 1. 

Either 1) ‘faction is the great destroyer of the states which are 
Subject to it, and of Sicily in particular ;’ or 2)* ‘of Sicily and her 
Cities,’ 


ἐδήλωσαν δὲ viv ἐν τῇ τοῦ Χαλκιδικοῦ γένους παρακλήσει" τοῖς γὰρ 6], 4. 
οὐδεπώποτε σφίσι κατὰ τὸ ξυμμαχικὸν προσβοηθήσασιν αὐτοὶ τὸ δίκαιον 
μᾶλλον τῆς ξυνθήκης προθύμως παρέσχοντο. 

Cp. iii. 86 med. ἐς οὖν τὰς ᾿Αθήνας πέμψαντες οἱ τῶν Λεοντίνων 
ξύμμαχοι, κατά τε παλαιὰν ξυμμαχίαν, καὶ ὅτι “Iwves ἦσαν, πείθουσι τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους πέμψαι σφίσι vais’ ὑπὸ γὰρ τῶν Συρακοσίων τῆς τε γῆς εἴργοντο 
καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. καὶ ἔπεμψαν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, τῆς μὲν οἰκειότητος προφάσει, 
βουλόμενοι δὲ μήτε σῖτον ἐς τὴν Πελοπόννησον ἄγεσθαι αὐτόθεν, πρόπειράν 


61. 4. 


él. 5. 


62. 3. 


62. 4. 


256 THUCYDIDES. 


τε ποιούμενοι, εἰ σφίσι δυνατὰ εἴη τὰ ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ πράγματα ὑποχείρια 
γενέσθαι. 

The genitive τῆς ξυνθήκης is to be construed, not with μᾶλλον, but 
with τὸ δίκαιον. paddXov=not ‘rather than,’ but ‘instead of;’ the 
Athenians had gone out of their way to observe the treaty: ‘instead 
of waiting till they received help,’ or ‘instead of following the 
example of the Chalcidians’ (μᾶλλον), they had ‘voluntarily (αὐτοί) 
offered the rights of the treaty’ (τὸ δίκαιον τῆς ξυνθήκης) to the Chal- 
cidians. 


καὶ οὐ τοῖς ἄρχειν Bovdopevors μέμφομαι, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὑπακούειν ἑτοιμοτέροις 
οὖσι. 

ἑτοιμοτέροις. Not ‘more ready,’ but ‘ who, instead of wanting to 
rule, are ready to serve.’ 

For other instances of the resolved comparative see note on ii. 
40. 1. 


ἢ δοκεῖτε εἴ τῴ τι ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν ἣ εἴ rp τὰ ἐναντία οὐχ ἡσυχία μᾶλλον ἣ 
πόλεμος τὸ μὲν παῦσαι ἂν ἑκατέρῳ τὸ δὲ ξυνδιασῶσαι, καὶ τὰς τιμὰς καὶ 
λαμπρότητας ἀκινδυνοτέρας ἔχειν τὴν εἰρήνην. 

Either 1) παῦσαι, ξυνδιασῶσαι are infinitives dependent on δοκεῖτε, 
ἡσυχία, πόλεμος being nominatives to δοκεῖ understood in δοκεῖτε : 
οὐκ is then supplied from the previous clause with the words καὶ ras 
τιμὰς... εἰρήνην, Or with δοκεῖτε from οὐχ ἡσυχία. 

Or 2) παύσαι ἄν and ξυνδιασώσαι may be optative: δοκεῖτε being 
parenthetical in the first clause, and governing ἔχειν τὴν εἰρήνην 
in the second. 


γνοὺς ὅτι πλείους ἤδη Kal τιμωρίαις μετιόντες τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας Kat ἐλπί- 
σαντες ἕτεροι δυνάμει τινὶ πλεονεκτήσειν, OL μὲν οὐχ ὅσον οὐκ ἡμύναντο ἀλλ᾽ 
οὐδ᾽ ἐσώθησαν, τοῖς δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ πλέον ἔχειν προσκαταλιπεῖν τὰ αὑτῶν ξυνέβη. 
The word πλείους includes both the clauses, καὶ τιμωρίαις κιτιλ. and 
καὶ ἐλπίσαντες ἕτεροι x.r.A., Which are resumed and more distinctly: 
opposed by μέν and δέ in the clauses which follow, οἱ péev=oi μετιόντες, 


τοῖς δέξετοῖς ἔλπίσασιν. 


τιμωρία γὰρ οὐκ εὐτυχεῖ δικαίως, ὅτι καὶ ἀδικεῖται' οὐδὲ ἰσχὺς βέβαιον, 


διότι καὶ εὔελπι. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 257 


Cp. supra εἴ τις βεβαίως τι ἣ τῷ δικαίῳ ἣ βίᾳ πράξειν οἴεται, where 62. 4. 
ἐξβεβαίως answers to βέβαιον here, τῷ δικαίῳ to δικαίως, and Bia to 
eo xis. 

ὅτι καὶ ἀδικεῖται. ΑΒ in iv. 17 fin. det γὰρ τοῦ πλέονος ἐλπίδι ὀρέγονται 
Bad τὸ καὶ τὰ παρόντα ἀδοκήτως εὐτυχῆσαι, the antecedent, and not as 
iim English would be more natural the consequent, is emphasized. 
ENot ‘ because vengeance is taken for a wrong, it is not therefore 
<as fortunate as it ought to be’ (τιμωρία yap ov καὶ εὐτυχεῖ δικαίως, ὅτι 
«-͵δικεῖται), but ‘vengeance is not as fortunate as it ought to be, 
hecause it is first wronged.’ Cp. note on ii. 35. 2. 

With ἀδικεῖται supply, from the personified τιμωρία, ὁ τιμωρούμενος. 


καὶ νῦν τοῦ ἀφανοῦς τε τούτου διὰ τὸ ἀτέκμαρτον δέος καὶ διὰ τὸ ἤδη BS. 1. 
«φοβεροὺς παρόντας ᾿Αθηναίους, κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα ἐκπλαγέντες, καὶ τὸ ἐλλιπὲς 
τῆς γνώμης ὧν ἕκαστός τις φήθημεν πράξειν ταῖς κωλύμαις ταύταις ἱκανῶς 
νομίσαντες εἰρχθῆναι, τοὺς ἐφεστῶτας πολεμίους ἐκ τῆς χώρας ἀποπέμ- 
πωμεν. 

παρόντας. For the use of the participle with the article after the 
preposition instead of the infinitive cp. note on i. 2. 5; and viii. 
105 med. διὰ τὸ κρατήσαντες ἀδεῶς ἄλλοι ἄλλην ναῦν διώκοντες. 

τὸ ἔλλιπές. Either 1) an accusativus pendens which may be re-. 
garded also as a remote accusative after εἰρχθῆναι, ‘And as to what 
is wanting to the fulfilment of our purposes, considering that we 
have been prevented,’ etc. Or 2)* τὸ ἐλλιπὲς τῆς γνώμης may be the 
subject of εἰρχθῆναι, the expression being pleonastic. 

ὧν is governed by τὸ ἐλλιπές or by τὸ ἐλλιπὲς τῆς γνώμης taken 
together; it may also be construed with εἰρχθῆναι or with κωλύμαις. 
If 1)* we read ris after ἕκαστος, 4y=rovrey ἅ, ‘of the things which we 
hoped severally to accomplish ;’ if 2) ri, ὥνξξτούτων ὧν, lit. ‘of 
which we hoped to accomplish some part,’ or ‘which we hoped in 
some degree to accomplish.’ φήθημεν answers to τῆς γνώμης. 


οὐ περὶ τοῦ τιμωρήσασθαί τινα, ἀλλά, καὶ ἄγαν εἰ τύχοιμεν, φίλοι μὲν ἂν 68. 2. 
τοῖς ἐχθίστοις, διάφοροι δὲ οἷς οὐ χρὴ κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην γιγνόμεθα. 

εἰ τύχοιμεν, 561]. τιμωρίας. φίλοι μὲν ἄν κιτιλ., sUpply γιγνοίμεθα. The 
stress is on the latter part of the sentence, which expresses the fact, 
and in which accordingly the indicative is substituted for the optative 

VOL. 0. 5 


258 THUCYDIDES. 


63, 2. with dy. None of the MSS. read γιγνοίμεθα, but either γιγνόμεθα, 
which is better supported, or γιγνώμεθα. 


64.1. καὶ ἐγὼ μέν, ἅπερ καὶ ἀρχόμενος εἶπον, πόλιν τε μεγίστην παρεχόμενος 
καὶ ἐπιών τῷ μᾶλλον ἣ ἀμννούμενος, ἀξιῶ προειδόμενος αὐτῶν ξυγχωρεῖν, 
καὶ μὴ τοὺς ἐναντίους οὕτω κακῶς δρᾶν, ὥστε αὐτὸς τὰ πλείω βλάπτεσθαι, 
μηδὲ μωρίᾳ φιλονεικῶν ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς τε οἰκείας γνώμης ὁμοίως αὐτοκράτωρ 
εἶναι καὶ ἧς οὐκ ἄρχω τύχης, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον εἰκὸς ἡσσᾶσθαι. καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους 
δικαιῶ ταὐτό μοι ποιῆσαι, ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων τοῦτο 
παθεῖν. 

ἀξιῶ προειδόμενος : the MSS, read προειδομένους and αὐτούς, but 
προειδόμενος, αὐτός, seem to be required by the words οἰκείας γνώμης 
and αὐτοκράτωρ which follow, as well as by the next sentence καὶ τοὺς 
ἄλλους δικαιῶ ταὐτό por ποιῆσαι, and has been accepted by all the 
recent editors. Yet a writer so irregular as Thucydides may have 
made a speaker pass from his audience to himself, and back again 
to his audience, with whom for an instant he is identified. 

προειδόμενος αὐτῶν, ‘having an eye to these things,’ i.e. the con- 
siderations put forward in the previous speech. 


64. 3. οὐδὲν γὰρ αἰσχρὸν οἰκείους οἰκείων ἡσσᾶσθαι, ἣ Δωριέα τινὰ Δωριέως ἣ 
Χαλκιδέα τῶν ξυγγενῶν, τὸ δὲ ξύμπαν γείτονας ὄντας καὶ ξυνοίκους μιᾶς 
χώρας καὶ περιῤῥύτου, καὶ ὄνομα ἕν κεκλημένους Σικελιώτας. 

τὸ δὲ ξύμπαν γείτονας ὄντας κατιλ. These words cannot merely give 
ἃ reason for the clause which has preceded (οἰκείους... ξυγγενῶ») : 
‘There is no disgrace in kindred giving way to kindred, Dorian to 
Dorian, Chalcidian to Chalcidian, while we all recognise that we 
have a common tie.’ For why should the Dorian yield to the 
Dorian, etc., and not also to the Chalcidian? We must rather 
repeat οὐδὲν αἰσχρὸν ἀλλήλων ἡσσᾶσθαι with τὸ δὲ ξύμπαν. ‘Not only 
may kindred give way to one another without disgrace, but every 
people of Sicily may give way to every other without disgrace, 
because they are neighbours, etc. The opposition expressed by 
δέ is only an opposition of the part to the whole, i.e. of individual 
Greek races to the whole of the Greek inhabitants of Sicily. The 
words might have run ἡσσᾶσθαι μὲν οἰκείους οἰκείων, ἡσσᾶσθαι δὲ 
γείτονας γειτόνων. Classen’s emendation, τέ, is unnecessary. 


NOTES, BOOK IV’. 


καὶ wepeppurav, ‘ which is also an island,’ an additional reason 
the Sicilians should unite. 


τοῦ & αὐτοῦ θέρους Μεγαρῆς οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει πιεζόμενοι ὑπό τε ᾿Αθη 
τῷ πολέμῳ, ἀεὶ κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον δὶς ἐσβαλλόντων πανστρατιᾷ ἐς 
χώραν κιτιλ. 
Cp. Arist. Acharn. (acted in Feb, 425, or about eighteen mc 
before this time), 761 foll..— 
ΔΙ. οὐδὲ σκόροδα ; 
ΜΕ. ποῖα σκόροδ᾽ : ὑμὲς τῶν ἀεὶ 
ὅκκ᾽ ἐσβάλητε, τὼς ἀρονυραῖοι μύες, 
πάσσακι τὰς ἄγλιθας ἐξορύσσετε. 
The whole passage contains a comic account of the suffering 
the Megarians. Cp. also Peace, 246,— 
ΠΟ. ὦ Μέγαρα, Méyap’, ὡς ἐπιτετρίψεσθ᾽ αὐτίκα 
ἀπαξάπαντα καταμεμνττωτευμένα. 
ΤΡ. βαβαί, βαβαιάξ, ὡς μεγάλα καὶ δριμέα 


τοῖσιν Μεγαρεῦσιν ἐνέβαλεν τὰ κλαύματα. 


ὑπὸ τῶν σφετέρων φυγάδων. 

Probably the same who are mentioned in iii. 68 med. as hc 
Ween permitted by the Thebans to live for a year in Plataca 
he taking of the city in 427. At the expiration of the time, 
=appear to have seized Pegae, a Megarian port on the Corint 


ssulf. 
ἦν δὲ σταδίων μάλιστα ὀκτὼ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἐπὶ τὴν Νίσαιαν τὸν ἃ 
«αὐτῶν. 
Megara is here said to be eight stadia from Nisaea, but acco1 
to Strabo ix. 1. 4 the distance was not less than eighteen stadia. 
Remarks on the Geography of Thucydides in the Introduction 


ἀκάτιον ἀμφηρικὸν ὡς λῃσταί; ἐκ πολλοῦ τεθεραπευκότες τὴν ἄνοιξι 
συλῶν, εἰώθεσαν ἐπὶ ἁμάξη πείθοντες τὸν ἄρχοντα διὰ τῆς τάφρου κα 
μίζειν τῆς νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἐκπλεῖν. 

The foss here spoken of, which was outside the wall, must 
reached the sea at a point beyond the limits of the harbour 
infra, μὴ ὄντος ἐν τῷ λιμένι πλοίου φανεροῦ μηδένος) which was fo. 
by the island of Minoa, then in possession of the Athenians. 

S 2 


67. 3. 


67. 4. 


θ9. 


70. 


260 THUCYDIDES. 


whole proceeding was of course a trick, intended to secure the 
opening of the gates before dawn on a particular morning. 


οὗ νῦν τὸ τροπαῖόν ἐστιν. 

It is interesting to remark that many years afterwards, when the 
soil on which it stood had passed into the hands of the defeated 
party (cp. iv. 109 init.), this trophy still remained standing. Cp. v. 


"10 med. where Thucydides speaks of the trophy on the hill outside 


Amphipolis as in existence at the time when he wrote: and viii. 
2¢ init. 


ἀρξάμενοι 8° ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους ὃ εἶχον, καὶ διοικοδομήσαντες τὸ πρὸς 
Μεγαρέας, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἑκατέρωθεν ἐς θάλασσαν τῆς Νισαίας τάφρον τε καὶ 
τείχη διελομένη ἡ στρατιά, ἔκ τε τοῦ προαστείου λίθοις καὶ πλίνθοις 
χρώμενοι, καὶ κόπτοντες τὰ δένδρα καὶ ὕλην ἀπεσταύρουν εἴ πῃ δέοιτό τι. 

διοικοδομήσαντε. The Athenians first of all block up the double 
wall which connected Nisaea with Megara; they then proceed with 
their line of circumvallation, and finally, c. 69 fin, break off 
entirely the connection of Nisaea with Megara. 

τοῦ τείχου. The double wall (cp. τὰ μακρὰ τείχη, iv. 66 fin.) is 
described as a single one, cp. ii. 13 fin. τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ re μακροῦ 
καὶ τοῦ Φαληρικοῦ. 

The construction of the sentence is defective. The main verb 
was intended to be περιετείχιζον or some similar word, which must 
be supplied in sense with ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἑκατέρωθεν... .. διελομένη ἡ στρατιά, 
and also with & re τοῦ... χρώμενοι. But this has been omitted, 
and ἀπεσταύρουν, which is applicable only to καὶ κόπτοντες x.r.X., 
concludes the sentence, as if some other finite verb had preceded. 
deorro= δέοι. Cp. Soph. O. C. 570,— 

ὥστε βραχέα μοι δεῖσθαι φράσαι : 
Dem. De Cor. (xviii.) 186, οὔτ᾽ εἰσήγετο ὧν ἐδεῖτ᾽ αὐτῷ : and iv. 130 
med. καί τινος αὐτῷ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ δήμον ἀντειπόντος κατὰ τὸ στασιωτικόν, 
ὅτι οὐκ ἐπέξεισιν, οὐδὲ δέοιτο πολεμεῖν κιτιλ., where however δέοιτο 
may=‘he did not wish to fight.’ 


ὡς δὲ ἐπύθετο (ἔτυχε yap νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὸν Τριποδίσκον ἐξελθών), ἀπολέξας 
τριακοσίους τοῦ στρατοῦ, πρὶν ἔκπυστος γενέσθαι, προσῆλθε τῇ τῶν Μεγαρέων 


πόλει λαθὼν τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ὄντας περὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 261 


tos δὲ ἐπύθετο, 501}. ἀλῶναι τὴν Νισαίαν. 70. 2. 
ἐξελθών, 1. 6. having come out of the hills. Cp. supra ὃ 1, ἔστι 
δὲ κώμη... ὑπὸ τῷ ὄρει τῇ Τερανείᾳ, 
γάρ, 1)* ‘for he did not arrive at Tripodiscus until night,’ i. 6. the 
night after Nisaea was taken, and therefore could not hear sooner. 
Or 2) ydp may explain what follows, ‘he was enabled, with a part 
of his army, to reach the town of Megara undiscovered, for he 
had arrived at Tripodiscus after dark.’ 
Brasidas made a descent from the pass on one side of Megara, 
while the Athenians were on the other side by the sea. 


βονλόμενος μὲν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ dua εἰ δύναιτο ἔργῳ τῆς Νισαίας πειρᾶσαι, 70, 2. 
τὸ δὲ μέγιστον, τὴν τῶν Μεγαρέων πόλιν ἐσελθὼν βεβαιώσασθαι. 

The meaning of the favourite opposition is here somewhat 
obscure. ‘He professed that he wanted, and really meant if he 
could, to attempt the recovery of Nisaea, but his first object was 
to make sure of Megara,’ i.e. to counteract the efforts of the 
popular party. 

τῷ λόγῳ is to be taken with βουλόμενος, ἔργῳ with πειρᾶσαι. 


ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος, πολλῴ μᾶλλον ἐῤῥώσθησαν, καὶ ἀποστεί- 72. 1. 
λαντες διακοσίους καὶ δισχιλίους ὁπλίτας καὶ ἱππέας ἑξακοσίους τοῖς πλείοσιν 
ἀπῆλθον πάλιν. 

ἐπειδὴ δὲ καί. ‘ But when there came also a request from out- 
side.’ 

πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐῤῥώσθησαν ... τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀπῆλθον πάλιν. The 
connection seems at first sight strange. But the meaning is that 
when the Boeotians heard of the intended march of Brasidas they 
thought that only a portion of their own troops would be needed. 


οὐ μέντοι ἔν γε τῷ παντὶ ἔργῳ βεβαίως οὐδέτεροι τελευτήσαντες 72. 4. 
εἰπεκρίθησαν. 

‘Still (μέντοι, although the Athenians succeeded in gaining an 
isolated advantage), in the whole action neither party when they 
Separated ended with a decided superiority.’ 


καλῶς δὲ ἐνόμιζον σφίσιν ἀμφότερα ἔχειν, dua μὲν τὸ μὴ ἐπιχειρεῖν 78. 2. 
προτέρους μηδὲ μάχης καὶ κινδύνον ἑκόντας ἄρξαι, ἐπειδή γε ἐν φανερῴ 


73. 2. 


73. 4. 


262 THUCYDIDES. 


ἔδειξαν ἕτοιμοι ὄντες ἀμύνεσθαι, καὶ αὐτοῖς ὥσπερ ἀκονιτὶ τὴν νίκην δικαίως 
ἂν τίθεσθαι. 

ἐπειδή γε κιτιλ. explains why the Pcloponnesians congratulated 
themselves that they were not taking the offensive,—they had 
clearly shown themselves ready to fight if attacked, and therefore 
could not be charged with cowardice: otherwise the refusal to 
begin would have been construed into defeat. 

τίθεσθαι either 1) is in the same construction with ἐπιχειρεῖν and 
included under τό, or 2) follows ἐνόμιζον. 


oi yap Μεγαρῆς, ὡς of ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐτάξαντο μὲν παρὰ τὰ μακρὰ τείχη 
ἐξελθόντες, ἡσύχαζον δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ μὴ ἐπιόντων, λογιζόμενοι καὶ οἱ ἐκείνων 
στρατηγοὶ μὴ ἀντίπαλον εἶναι σφίσι τὸν κίνδυνον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰ πλεῖδο αὐτοῖς 
προεκεχωρήκει, ἄρξασι μάχης πρὸς πλείονας αὑτῶν ἣ λαβεῖν νικήσαντας 
Μέγαρα ἣ σφαλέντας τῷ βελτίστῳ τοῦ ὁπλιτικοῦ βλαφθῆναι, τοῖς δὲ ξυμ- 
πάσης τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ τῶν παρόντων μέρος ἕκαστον κινδυνεύειν εἰκότως 
ἐθέλειν τολμᾶν κ.τιλ. 

οἱ γὰρ Μεγαρῆς is resumed after many interruptions in οἱ τῶν 
φευγόντων φίλοι Μεγαρῆς which follows several lines below. 

μὴ ἐπιόντων, scil. the Peloponnesians. 

In the last clause the emphasis is on ξυμπάσης τῆς δυνάμεως. τοῖς 
δέ is a dative of relation. ‘But in the enemy’s case, that the several 
contingents of their whole force, which were also the several parts 
of the army now in the field (τῶν παρόντων), should run the risk, was 
a thing which they would naturally be willing to venture.’ A subject 
is supplied with ἐθέλειν from τοῖς δέ: the clause ξυμπάσης... κινδυ- 
νεύειν being dependent on τολμᾶν. 

The meaning is, that whereas the main body of the Athenian 
army consisted of the best of their own heavy-armed (τὸ βέλτιστον 
τοῦ ὁπλιτικοῦ), the Peloponnesian army was formed of many parts, 
each part being a fraction of the whole force of the confederacy. 
The loss to the Peloponnesians would therefore be less from two 
points of view ; (a) relatively to the confederacy ; the contingents 
were only a part of its whole force, present and absent; (6) relatively 
to the army; each contingent was only a part of the troops now 
in the field; whereas the Athenian forces were (a) the flower of 
their whole army, 4) drawn from onc city. It is assumed that the 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 263 


loss would fall more heavily on one part of the army present than 78. 4. 
zanother. If the Boeotians suffered it mattered little to the Co- 
Kinthians or Sicyonians. But in any case the loss which might 
be incurred would fall heavily on the Athenians. 

Classen’s emendation, τῶν παρόντων μέρος ἑκάστων, which he trans- 
Hates, ‘A portion only of the forces of the several confederates 
mepresented in the field,’ is ingenious, but unnecessary. 


of δὲ ἐν τῇ πόλει Μεγαρεῖς x.7.X. 74. 2. 
The account of the overthrow of the Megarian democracy given 
Wy Aristotle is inconsistent with this narrative. See Polit. iv. 15. 15, 
~v. 3. 5, 5. 4, where he speaks of the democracy being overthrown 
=after a battle with the oligarchs, and by reason of the anarchy and 
disorder which had previously prevailed. It is not however certain 
that this is the occasion referred to by him, since long before, in the 
time of Theognis, faction had been in extremes at Megara. 


of δὲ ἐπειδὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐγένοντο καὶ ἐξέτασιν ὅπλων ἐποιήσαντο, 14. ὃ. 
διαστήσαντες τοὺς λόχους ἐξελέξαντο τῶν τε ἐχθρῶν, καὶ οἱ ἐδόκουν μάλιστα 
ξυμπρᾶξαι τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους, ἄνδρας ὡς ἑκατόν. 

Cp. the narrative of Hippias, vi. 58. Under pretence of in- 
specting the arms they separated the troops from their arms, and 
the different divisions from one another. 


ἐκ στάσεως μετάστασις. 74. 4. 
Cp. ii. 62 fin. μὴ φρονήματι μόνον ἀλλὰ καταφρονήματι : iii. 39 init. 
ἐπανέστησαν μᾶλλον ἣ ἀπέστησαν. 
The later internal history of Megara is uncertain. The long 
walls were retaken and destroyed by the Megarians in the course 
of the ensuing winter, iv. 109 init., and Nisaea is said by Diodorus 
to have been recovered by them in the year 409 (xiii. 65). Isocrates, 


De Pace (viii) 143, 144, mentions the peace and prosperity which 
Megara enjoyed in his time. 


ὁρμήσας és τὸν KdAnxa ποταμὸν ἀπόλλυσι τὰς ναῦς, ὕδατος ἄνωθεν yevo- 76. 2. 
μένου καὶ κατελθόντος αἰφνιδίου τοῦ ῥεύματος. 

ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου. Either 1) ‘from the sky,’ in which case 
Thucydides seems to be describing something of the nature of a 


75. 2. 


77. 2. 


78. 2. 


264 THUCYDIDES. 


waterspout, or 2)* as Arnold supposes, rain fell in the upper country, 
and coming down from the mountains swelled the stream with 
such rapidity as to swamp or dash in pieces vessels drawn up at 
the mouth. 

Arnold is however wrong in maintaining that ἄνωθεν cannot mean 
‘coelitus ;’ whether such a use is to be found in early Greek or 
not, it is evidently contained in the original idea of the word. 


καὶ ὁ μὲν Δημοσθένης ἀφικόμενος Οἰνιάδας δὲ ὑπό τε ᾿Ακαρνάνων πάντων 
κατηναγκασμένους καταλαβὼν ἐς τὴν ᾿Αθηναίων ξυμμαχίαν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνα- 
στήσας τὸ ξυμμαχικὸν τὸ ἐκείνῃ πᾶν κιτ.λ. 

Oeniadae had hitherto been the only town in Acarnania which 
had favoured the Lacedaemonians and successfully resisted the 
Athenians (ii. 102 init.) καὶ αὐτός answers to imé re ᾿Ακαρνάνων, and 
opposes the single activity of Demosthenes to the combined efforts 
of the Acarnanians. κατηναγκασμένους és, ‘ coerced into.’ 


τὴν yap Θεσσαλίαν ἄλλως τε οὐκ εὔπορον ἦν Suevar ἄνευ ἀγωγοῦ, καὶ 
μετὰ ὅπλων γε δὴ καὶ τοῖς πᾶσί γε ὁμοίως “Ἕλλησιν ὕποπτον καθεστήκει 
τὴν τῶν πέλας μὴ πείσαντας διιέναι. 

These words contain either two or three distinct statements. 
Either 1)* ‘under any circumstances it would have been no easy 
matter to cross Thessaly without an escort, indeed for an armed 
force to go at all through a neighbour's country without his consent 
was a suspicious proceeding in the eyes of all Hellenes.’ It may be 
objected to this interpretation, a) that γέ is twice repeated, and δ) 
that the words μετὰ ὅπλων ye δή (notwithstanding the position of 
τὴν yap Θεσσαλίαν before ἄλλως re) apply generally, and not to 
Thessaly only. But these objections are not serious. 

Greater fault may be found with 2). ‘It was not easy to pass 
through Thessaly without an escort, certainly not with an armed 
force (putting a colon after γέ δή); and to go through a neighbour’s 
country without his consent was a suspicious proceeding,’ etc. 
a) The clause καὶ τοῖς πᾶσί γε... διιέναι, without μετὰ ὅπλων, has a 
feeble sense, and can hardly have been πιὸ; ὁ) γέ δή is awkward 
at the end of a separate clause. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 265 


ἐπεὶ καὶ τόδε ἔπραξαν φοβούμενοι αὐτῶν τὴν νεότητα καὶ τὸ πλῆθος. 80. 3. 
That this atrocity should have been committed at the very time 
When the Spartans were sending out a body of Helots on a foreign 
€xpedition is improbable in itself, and is contradicted by the words 
low, καὶ τότε προθύμως τῷ Bpacida αὐτῶν ξυνέπεμψαν ἑπτακοσίους 
ὁπλίτας, which clearly imply that Thucydides is led by associa- 
tion to speak of what had occurred on some former occasion. 
Shortly after the expedition of Brasidas the Spartans changed 
their policy towards the Helots, and emancipated those of them 
Who had served with him (v. 34 init.). They had previously 
δὺν Ἐξ ἢ promises of emancipation which were believed, and therefore 
bre ably fulfilled, to Helots conveying food into Sphacteria (iv. 26 
Ne= <3,), If, as Bishop Thirlwall assumes, and Mr. Grote admits (part 
a ch. liii. init.) the massacre here mentioned did not take place 
at “this particular time, it is useless to speculate about any other 

imme at which it may possibly have taken place. 


“wapocitroy αὐτῶν ὅσοι ἀξιοῦσιν ἐν τοῖς πολεμίοις γεγενῆσθαι σφίσιν 80. 8. 
Spm ας πστοι, κρίνεσθαι, ὡς ἐλευθερώσοντες. 


“χρίνεσθαι, probably passive. Cp. προκρίναντες below. 


καὶ οὐδεὶς ἥἤσθετο ὅτῳ τρόπῳ ἕκαστος διεφθάρη. 80. 4. 
The manner in which the greatest crime in Greek history was 
“Srpetrated, though unknown to Thucydides and to Plutarch, was 
Ἂς τονε to Diodorus, or rather imagined by him, xii. 67; he sup- 
“ses that the two thousand Helots were distributed among the 
“= hiief Spartans and secretly put to death by them : ἀπογραψαμένων 
τ δισχιλίων, τούτους μὲν προσέταξαν τοῖς κρατίστοις ἀποκτεῖναι κατ᾽ οἶκον 


= ἀχάστου. 


ὥστε τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις γίγνεσθαι ξυμβαίνειν τε βουλομένοις, ὅπερ Bl. 2. 
zoincay, ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ ἀποδοχὴν χωρίων, καὶ τοῦ πολέμου ἀπὸ τῆς 
πΤελοποννήσον λώφησιν. 

ξυμβαίνειν τε βουλομένοις aNSwers tO καὶ τοῦ πολέμου κιτιλ., the latter 

‘words being equivalent to καὶ πολεμοῦσι, τοῦ πολέμου ἀπὸ τῆς Πελοπον- 
νήσου λώφησιν. ‘When they wanted to come to terms they had 
places to offer in exchange, and as long as they continued the war 
it did not press so heavily upon Peloponnesus.’ 


81. 3. 


83. 4. 


84. 2. 


85. 4. 


266 THUCYDIDES. 


πρῶτος yap ἐξελθὼν καὶ δόξας εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ἀγαθὸς ἔλπίδα ἐγκατέλιπ-ττὸ πὸ... 


βέβαιον ὡς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι τοιοῦτοί εἰσι. 


πρῶτος, 1)* the first of a series of Lacedaemonian generals whom s=—- 
in accordance with a new policy, were regularly sent to the <i 
dependencies of Athens either that they might raise revolt or thas —= 
they might govern a town already revolted (cp. iv. 132 fin.). πρῶτοιικ--»ς- 
contrasts Brasidas, not with Pausanias, Salaethus, etc., but with=——— 
Astyochus, and with the Harmosts who afterwards became sca 


notorious. 


Or 2) πρῶτος may be qualified by καὶ δόξας «rd. He was thes 


first, not merely who went out, but who proved himself to be κε 
good man. 

For instances of the misconduct of Spartans abroad, see note 
on English text, i. 77 fin. 


ἅμα δέ τι καὶ εἰρήκεσαν τοιοῦτον οἱ παρὰ τοῦ Περδίκκου ἐν τῇ Λακεδαίμονι, 
ὡς πολλὰ αὐτοῖς τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν χωρίων ξύμμαχα ποιήσοι, Sore ἐκ τοῦ 
τοιούτου κοινῇ μᾶλλον ὁ Βρασίδας τὰ τοῦ ᾿Αῤῥιβαίου ἠξίουν πράσσειν. 

Perdiccas had promised to make his neighbours allies of the 
Lacedaemonians. ‘This gave Brasidas a right to interfere. ‘ For,’ 
he would argue, ‘you are not making an ally but an enemy of 
Arrhibaeus.’ 


κοινῇ, either 1)* jointly, or 2) impartially. 


πεισθὲν τὸ πλῆθος ὑπὸ τοῦ Βρασίδου δέξασθαί τε αὐτὸν μόνον καὶ 
ἀκούσαντας βουλεύσασθαι, δέχεται. 

The accusative appears to be used because the subject is partly 
changed, ‘The popular party being persuaded by Brasidas to 
receive him singly, and then that they (i.e. both parties) should hear 
him first and decide afterwards.’ Cp. Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 750. 


ἡμεῖς μὲν yap οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, οἰόμενοί τε παρὰ ξυμμάχους καὶ πρὶν ἔργῳ 
ἀφικέσθαι τῇ γοῦν γνώμῃ ἥξειν καὶ βουλομένοις ἔσεσθαι, κίνδυνόν τε 
τοσόνδε ἀνεῤῥίψαμεν, διὰ τῆς ἀλλοτρίας πολλῶν ἡμερῶν ὁδὸν ἰόντες, καὶ 
πᾶν τὸ πρόθυμον παρεχόμενοι, 

τέ after οἰόμενοι answers to καί before βουλομένοις, ‘ thinking that 
we were coming to allies...and that you would be delighted to 
receive us.’ 


NOTES, BOVA LV. 267 
=] γον γνώμη, scil. ὄντας ὑμᾶς (Exppaxovs). 85. 4. 
Ξ aier εἰσδενον 1)* corresponds to καί before Ξξαρεχόμενοι, but the 
a= action of ideres has given the latter part of the sentence a parti- 
Crptsl form ; παρεχόμενοι instead of παρεχόμεθα OF παρειχύμεθα. 
Or 2) τέ, though really belonging to διὰ τῆς ἀλλοτρίας ἰόντες, May 
be pur by anticipation with the first word of the sentence, like 
τέ after οἰόμενοι just above. 
For τέ see note on i. 9. 3 δὲ 1. 5. 
@eSSivaper is clearly the true reading (cp. κίνδυνον ἀναῤῥιπτεῖν, 
®. 95 init, vi. 13 med.), though several MSS. have ἀπεῤῥίψαμεν, 


ΠΟ sensu. 


ama “τὴν αἰτίαν οὐχ ἔξω πιστὴν ἀποδεικνύναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἄδικον τὴν ἔλευ- 85. 6. 
Θερίαω. ἐπιφέρειν, ἢ ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἀδύνατος τιμωρῆσαι τὰ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους, 
ἐπ ξωωσι, ἀφῖχθαι. 

WW"iih the infinitive ἐπιφέρειν 1) we may supply αἰτίαν ἔξω in 
2 Gi €¥erent sense, ‘I shall be charged with.” Not only however 

has «αἰτίαν ἔξω to be supplied in a different sense, but the words 
os to be connected in a new manner ; for αἰτίαν in the preceding 
ix Asse is the accusative after ἀποδεικνύναι, not after ἔξω. ἐπιφέρειν 

Uh erefore more probably to be taken 2)* in apposition with or as 
ff. xplanation of τὴν αἰτίαν, ‘I shall be able to give no reason 
Xr a my rejection, but shall have to confess that the liberty which 

“> fier is false.’ Lit. ‘I shall have no reason to give except the 


r 
n that.’ 


@eairos στρατιᾷ ye τῇδ᾽, ἣν νῦν ἐγὼ ἔχω, ἐπὶ Νίσαιαν ἐμοῦ βοηθήσαντος, 85. 7. 
rae ἠθέλησαν ᾿Αθηναῖοι πλέονες ὄντες προσμῖξαι' ὥστε οὐκ εἰκὸς vytry ye 
ὅν οὺς τῷ ἐν Νισαίᾳ στρατῷ ἴσον πλῆθος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀποστεῖλαι 
. After νηΐτῃ supply στρατῷ from τῷ ἐν τῇ Νισαίᾳ στρατῷς The read- 
Ay found in the Venetian MS., which places στρατῷ after νηΐτῃ ye 
sy well as after Νισαίᾳ, although probably a gloss, indicates the 
“eue meaning of the text. ‘With a force superior to mine they 
“lid not attack me at Nisaea. Therefore with a force necessarily 
inferior to that which they had at Nisaea, because brought hither 
by sea, they certainly will not do so now.’ The conclusion implied 
in ὥστε is imperfectly expressed, for we should expect ‘ they will 


85. 7. 


86. 1. 


86. 2. 


86. 4. 


268 THUCYDIDES. 


not attack you here,’ instead of which Thucydides only says, ‘ they 
will not send an equal force hither.’ 

The whole statement is manifestly untrue; for 2) the numbers 
under the command of Brasidas at Nisaea were more than equal 
to those of the Athenians, cp. iv. 73 med. λογιζόμενοι καὶ of ἐκείνων 
στρατηγοὶ (i. e. the Athenian generals) μὴ ἀντίπαλον εἶναι σφίσι τὸν 
κίνδυνον ... ἄρξασι μάχης πρὸς πλείονας αὑτῶν ἣ λαβεῖν νικήσαντας Μέ- 
γαρα κιτιλ,, and δ) it was not only the Lacedaemonian contingent 
now with Brasidas which the Athenians feared to encounter, but the 
selected contingents of the allies: iv. 70 med. καὶ αὐτὸς ἔχων ἦλθεν 
ἑπτακοσίους μὲν καὶ δισχιλίους Κορινθίων ὁπλίτας, Φλιασίων δὲ τετρακοσίους, 
Σικυωνίων δὲ ἑξακοσίους καὶ τοὺς μεθ᾽ ἑαντοῦ, ὅσοι ἤδη ξυνειλεγμένοε 
ἦσαν. 

Cp. iv. 108 med. τοῦ Βρασίδου ἐφολκὰ καὶ οὐ τὰ ὄντα λέγοντος, 
ὡς αὐτῷ ἐπὶ Νίσαιαν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ μόνῃ στρατιᾷ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι 


ξυμβαλεῖν. 


ὅρκοις τε Λακεδαιμονίων καταλαβὼν τὰ τέλη τοῖς μεγίστοις ἦ μὴν οὗς ἂν 
ἔγωγε προσαγάγωμαι ξυμμάχους ἔσεσθαι αὐτονόμους. 

Not because Brasidas himself distrusted the Lacedaemonian 
magistrates (as Grote supposes, part II. ch. lii. fin.), but as a security 
to which he could appeal when addressing the allies. 


οὐκοῦν ἀξιῶ οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς ὑποπτεύεσθαι, πίστεις ye διδυὺς τὰς μεγίστας, 
οὔτε τιμωρὸς ἀδύνατος νομισθῆναι. 

αὐτός. Brasidas opposes one aspect of himself, i.e. his personal 
honesty, to another aspect not equally personal, his ability to 
help the Acanthians. ‘My personal character ought not to be 
suspected by you, nor my power to assist you undervalued.’ Cp. 
αὐτός, 86. 1. 


οὐ γὰρ ξυστασιάσων ἥκω, οὐδὲ ἀσαφῆ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, εἰ 
τὸ πάτριον παρεὶς τὸ πλέον τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἣ τὸ ἔλασσον τοῖς πᾶσι δουλώσαιμι., 

εἰ τὸ πάτριον παρείς κιτιλ. is an explanation of ἀσαφῆ, ‘as I should 
do, if.” Cp. notes on i. 38. 4; 40. 2; iii. 11. 3. It has been 
argued that Brasidas could not have said this, because his own 
country was an oligarchy. In iv. 126 init. he himself boasts to the 
Peloponnesian soldiers that they belong to a country in which 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 269 


the Fewrule over the Many. But Brasidas, as Thucydides has told 86. 4. 
us, was something of a rhetorician (iv. 108 med., cp. 70 fin., 84 fin.) 

and need not be expected to speak the precise truth at all times, 

or to use the same language under different circumstances. 


καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις οὐκ ἂν ἀντὶ πόνων χάρις καθίσταιτο, ἀντὶ 86. 5. 
δὲ τίμης καὶ δόξης αἰτία μᾶλλον" οἷς τε τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἐγκλήμασι κατα- 
πολεμοῦμεν, αὐτοὶ ἂν φαινοίμεθα ἐχθίονα ἢ ὁ μὴ ὑποδείξας ἀρετὴν κατακτώ- 
μένοι. 

We may note the use of ἀντί in the parallel clauses, meaning 
a) in return for; δ) instead of. 

1) οἷς, scil. ταῦτα οἷς. ἐχθίονα, scil. ταῦτα τὰ ἐγκλήματα, lit. ‘in a 
more hateful form.’ ΟΥ̓ 2)" more simply, the clause οἷς κατα- 
πολεμοῦμεν (Ξεταῦτα ols καταπολεμοῦμεν) represents ἃ nominativus 
pendens, ‘as to the charges with which,’ and ἐχθίονα =‘ charges 
more hateful.’ 


καὶ οὐκ ἂν μείζω πρὸς τοῖς ὅρκοις βεβαίωσιν λάβοιτε ἣ οἷς τὰ ἔργα 87. 1.. 
ἐκ τῶν λόγων ἀναθρούμενα δόκησιν ἀναγκαίαν παρέχεται ὡς καὶ ξυμφέρει 
ὁμοίως ὡς εἶπον. 

οἷς, 5011. ἢ τούτων οἷς, ‘than they give whose actions examined 
from the point of view of their words, (i.e. compared with their 
words,) lead necessarily to the inference that their interests,’ or 
‘their hearers’ interests, are really (xa) as they say.’ 


προσεῖναι δέ τί μοι καὶ κατὰ δύο ἀνάγκας τὸ εὔλογον, τῶν μὲν Aaxedat- 87. 3. 
μονίων, ὅπως μὴ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ εὔνῳ, εἰ μὴ προσαχθήσεσθε, τοῖς ἀπὸ ὑμῶν 
χρήμασι φερομένοις παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίους βλάπτωνται, οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες ἵνα μὴ 
κωλύωνται ip ὑμῶν δουλείας ἀπαλλαγῆναι, 

τί, either 1) adverbial, like πού, ‘methinks ;’ or 2) agreeing with 
τὸ εὔλογον, ‘that I do not act altogether without reason.’ In either 
case ri is a litotes. 

τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων x.T.\.=piay μέν, ὅπως μὴ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι βλάπτωνται. 
τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων is governed by ἀνάγκην, ‘a necessity imposed by 
the interests of the Lacedaemonians.’ τοῖς ἀπὸ ὑμῶν χρήμασιν, τῷ 
ὑπετέρῳ εὔνῳ, are both dependent on βλάπτωνται, the first being the 


87. 3. 


87. 4. 


87. 6. 


90. 


2. 


270 THUCYDIDES. 


dative of the nearcr instrument or cause, the second of the more 
remote. 


ov yap δὴ εἰκότως γ᾽ ἂν τάδε πράσσοιμεν. 
τάδεΞΞ τὸ δηοῦντας τὴν γὴν πειρᾶσθαι βιάζεσθαι. 


πρὸς ταῦτα βουλεύεσθε εὖ, καὶ ἀγωνίσασθε τοῖς τε Ἕλλησιν ἄρξαι 
πρῶτοι ἔλευθερίας καὶ ἀΐδιον δόξαν καταθέσθαι, καὶ αὐτοὶ τά τε ἴδια μὴ 
βλαφθῆναι καὶ ξυμπάσῃ τῇ πόλει τὸ κάλλιστον ὄνομα περιθεῖναι. 

τοῖς τε Ἕλλησιν. .. καὶ αὐτοί. The freedom of the Hellenes 
generally, and the glory of sharing in a great Hellenic struggle, 
is contrasted with the individual interest of the Acanthians and the 
fair name of their whole state. The contrast however is somewhat 
imperfect. It is difficult to see precisely the distinction between 
ἀΐδιον δόξαν καταθέσθαι and κάλλιστον ὄνομα περιθεῖνα. But the first 
clause seems to refer to the general fame of the Acanthians in 
Hellas, the second to their own consciousness of it (καὶ αὐτοῦ. 
Or τὸ κάλλιστον ὄνομα may be taken in a more precise sense, 
‘a name of honour,’=‘ liberty.’ Cp. vii. 68 med. (προσέθεσαν ἀν) 
πόλει τῇ πάσῃ THY αἰσχίστην ἐπίκλησιν, SCil. δούλειαν. 

There seems to be a play of sound on ἀΐδιον and ἰδία : cp. iv. 
20. init. ἐν ᾧ ἀνάγκη ἀΐδιον ὑμῖν ἔχθραν πρὸς τῇ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίαν ἔχειν: 
iv. 63 med. καὶ αὐτοὶ μάλιστα μὲν ἐς ἀΐδιον ξυμβῶμεν, εἰ δὲ μή, χρόνον 


ὡς πλεῖστον σπεισάμενοι τὰς ἰδίας διαφορὰς ἐς αὖθις ἀναβαλώμεθα. 


τάφρον μὲν κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ τὸν νεὼν ἔσκαπτον, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὀρύγ- 
ματος ἀνέβαλλον ἀντὶ τείχους τὸν χοῦν, καὶ σταυροὺς παρακαταπηγνύντες, 
ἄμπελον κόπτοντες τὴν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐσέβαλλον, καὶ λίθους ἅμα καὶ 
πλίνθον, ἐκ τῶν οἰκοπέδων τῶν ἐγγὺς καθαιροῦντες, καὶ παντὶ τρόπῳ ἐμετεώ- 
ριζον τὸ ἔρυμα. 

The full construction would be ἄμπελον κόπτοντες τὴν περὶ τὸ ἱερόν, 
ἐσέβαλλον (αὐτήν), καὶ λίθους ἅμα καὶ πλίνθον (ἐσέβαλλον), ἐκ τῶν οἰκοπέδων 
τῶν ἐγγὺς καθαιροῦντες (αὐτά). 

ἐκ τῶν οἰκοπέδων, either 1) from the substructures of the houses 
which, like the cloisters, had fallen down; or 2)* from the houses. 

ἔσκαπτον, avéBaddov x.t.A. For the sake of greater liveliness the 
imperfect is used throughout the description instead of the aorist. 


NOTES, BOOK IV, 271 


καὶ εἰσὶ δήπον πολέμιοι, ἐν ᾧ τε ἂν χωρίῳ καταληφθῶσι, καὶ ὅθεν ἐπελ- 92. 1. 
θόντες πολέμια ἔδρασαν. 

There might be a doubt about the land in which they were 
Caught; there was none about their hostile actions. Hence the 


subjunctive followed by the indicative. 
below. 


Cp. ἐπίῃ and ἐπέρχεται 
wi δ᾽͵, ef rp καὶ ἀσφαλέστερον ἔδοξεν εἶναι, μεταγνώτω. 

“Βαϊ now, as matters stand’ (alluding to the unwillingness of the 

other Boeotarchs to fight beyond the borders of Boeotia), ‘ whoever 

σεις (xai) think it safer nét to fight, let him change his mind.” νυνὶ 
é€ answers to χρῆν μέν at the beginning of the chapter. 


92. 2. 


wpds τε γὰρ τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας πᾶσι τὸ ἀντίπαλον καὶ ἐλεύθερον καθί- 92. 4. 
FBT cx, καὶ πρὸς τούτους γε δῆ, οἱ καὶ μὴ τοὺς ἐγγὺς ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄπωθεν 
‘€£Pa>yra1 δουλοῦσθαι, πῶς οὐ χρή K.T.A. 

* F*or, as against neighbours always, where antagonism is, there 
Liberty’ ; or ‘where men are ready to fight they are also free.’ 
βδανὴ τοὺς ἐγγύς, ‘you must not say their neighbours only,’ an- 
Wering to τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας. ryan ὅτι. 


We εχράδειγμα δὲ ἔχομεν τούς τε ἀντιπέρας Εὐβοέας καὶ τῆς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος 92. 4. 
τὸ τε Ολύ, ὡς αὐτοῖς διάκειται. 
“trois is a dative of relation, ‘To what a condition they have 
T€duced Euboea and the greater part of Hellas.’ 


τῷ δὲ Ἱπποκράτει, ὄντι περὶ τὸ Δήλιον, ὡς αὐτῷ ἠγγέλθη ὅτι Βοιωτοὶ 93. 2. 
ἐπέρχονται πέμπει κιτλ. 
τῷ δὲ Ἱπποκράτει was intended to follow ἠγγέλθη, but the construc- 


tion is changed, αὐτῷ being inserted as if ὁ δὲ Ἱπποκράτης had 
preceded. 


εἶχον δὲ δεξιὸν μὲν κέρας Θηβαῖοι καὶ ot ξύμμοροι αὐτοῖς. 93. 4. 
οἱ ξύμμοροι αὐτοῖς ΞΞ- οἱ ξυνετέλουν ἐς αὐτούς, cp. supra, c. 76 med. Χαι- 
ρώνειαν δέ, ἢ ἐς ᾿Ορχομενὸν... ξυντελεῖ, and for the ξύμμοροι of Thebes, 
Strabo ix. 2. 24, τοὺς Παρασωπίους.... ἅπαντας ὑπὸ Θηβαίοις ὄντας"... 
ἐν δὲ τῇ Θηβαίων εἰσὶ καὶ αἱ Θεράπναι, καὶ ὃ Τευμησσός ; ὃ 31, Glisas ; 
§ 34, Acraephion. 


95. 2. 


96. 3. 


96. 6. 


98. τ. 


272 THUCYDIDES. 


> 


παραστῇ δὲ μηδενὶ ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν τῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ ov προσῆκον τοσόνδε κίν- 
δυνον ἀναῤῥιπτοῦμεν. ἐν γὰρ τῇ τούτων ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας 6 ἀγὼν ἔσται. 

Either general assumes that the country in which he is fighting 
belongs to the enemy. Compare 91, 92 init., 99. 


ὑποχωρησάντων yap αὑτοῖς τῶν παρατεταγμένων K.T.A, 

αὐτοῖς is the so-called ‘dativus ethicus,’ expressing the effect on 
the mind. Cp. note on iii. 98.1. ‘ For when they saw the troops 
ranged at their side giving way.’ 


The presence of Socrates at the battle of Delium, where ‘ he 
kept his head better than the soldier Laches, and showed by his 
bearing that he was not a person to be trifled with,’ is described 
at length in the Symposium of Plato, 220 D—221 C, and alluded 
to Apol. 28 E, Laches, 181 B. ᾿ 


τοσαῦτα τοῦ κήρυκος εἱπόντος, of ᾿Αθηναῖοι πέμψαντες παρὰ τοὺς Βοιωτοὺς 
ἑαυτῶν κήρυκα τοῦ μὲν ἱεροῦ οὔτε ἀδικῆσαι ἔφασαν οὐδέν, οὔτε τοῦ λοιποῦ 
ἑκόντες βλάψειν’ οὐδὲ γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσελθεῖν ἐπὶ τούτῳ, ἀλλ᾽ Ba ἐξ 
αὐτοῦ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας μᾶλλον σφᾶς ἀμύνωνται, 

οὔτε ἀδικῆσαι... βλάψειν. Though ἑκὼν βλάπτειν is said to be 
equivalent to ἀδικεῖν (Nic. Eth. v. 9. 4), this is not the case here, for 
ἑκόντες iS really separated from βλάψειν. Not ‘they would not 
injure, but ‘they would not, if they could help, do any harm.’ 
In a promise the expression ἑκὼν βλάπτειν is far more forcible than 
the repetition of ἀδικήσειν would be. 

τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας σφᾶς. 1) This is a piece of sophistry intended 
to answer the unusual demand of the Thebans. From the Athe- 
nian point of view the Thebans were now the aggressors, either 
because they had crossed the frontier, or because they were attack- 
ing Delium, which the Athenians maintained to be theirs by right 
of conquest. Of course this was no real excuse for the occupation 
of Delium, which took place before either of these pretended acts 
of aggression. 

Or 2) the words τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας σφᾶς may be taken in a more 
general sense. They wanted to defend themselves against those 
who were doing them a wrong by joining in the Lacedaemonian 
invasions of Attica, 


NOTES, BOOK 1V. 273 


In either case μᾶλλον is connected with ἐσελθεῖν, not with ἀδι- 98. 1. 


κουνταξ. 


τὸν δὲ νόμον τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εἶναι, ὧν ἂν 7 τὸ κράτος τῆς γῆς ἑκάστης 98. 2. 
ἣν τε πλέονος ἥν τε βραχυτέρας, τούτων καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἀεὶ γίγνεσθαι, τρόποις 
θεραπευόμενα οἷς ἂν πρὸς τοῖς εἰωθόσι καὶ δύνωνται. 

The last words are a limitation on τοῖς εἰωθόσι, ‘ which besides 
being customary were possible,’ or ‘which were customary when- 
ever possible.’ 


καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰ μὲν ἐπὶ πλέον δυνηθῆναι τῆς ἐκείνων κρατῆσαι, τοῦτ᾽ ἂν ἔχειν. 98. 4. 
δυνηθῆναι in orat. obliq.=ei ἐδυνήθησαν. τοῦτο, scil. ‘the ownership 
of the Boeotian temples.’ 


σαφῶς re ἐκέλευον σφίσιν εἰπεῖν μὴ " ἀπιοῦσιν ἐκ τῆς Βοιωτῶν γῆς, (od 98. 8. 
γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων ἔτι εἶναι, ἐν ἣ δὲ δορὶ ἐκτήσαντο,) ἀλλὰ ‘ κατὰ τὰ πάτρια᾽ 
τοὺς νεκροὺς " σπένδουσιν᾽ ἀναιρεῖσθαι. 

σαφῶς εἰπεῖν refers to the second condition, not to the first. 
onévdovow appears to be used here, and here only in classical 
Greek, in the sense of σπενδομένοις. 


οἱ δὲ Βοιωτοὶ ἀπεκρίναντο, εἰ μὲν ἐν τῇ Βοιωτίᾳ εἰσίν, ἀπιόντας ἐκ τῆς 99. 
ἑαυτῶν ἀποφέρεσθαι τὰ σφέτερα, εἶ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων, αὐτοὺς γιγνώσκειν τὸ 
ποιητέον, νομίζοντες τὴν μὲν ᾿Ωρωπίαν, ἐν 7) τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐν μεθορίοις τῆς 
μάχης γενομένης κεῖσθαι ξυνέβη, ᾿Αθηναίων κατὰ τὸ ὑπήκοον εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ 
ἂν αὐτοὺς βίᾳ σφῶν κρατῆσαι αὐτῶν' οὐδ᾽ αὖ ἐσπένδοντο δῆθεν ὑπὲρ τῆς 
ἐκείνων" τὸ δὲ “ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτῶν᾽ εὐπρεπὲς εἶναι ἀποκρίνασθαι ‘ ἀπιόντας, 
καὶ ἀπολαβεῖν ἃ ἀπαιτοῦσιν. 

At first the Boeotians argue that they are not bound to give up 
the dead bodies, unless the Athenians previously give up the temple 
which they have profaned. They now shift their ground, and 
Offer the following dilemma. ‘If Oropia is yours, take the bodies ; 
if it is ours, first leave what is not your own,’ i. e. leave Oropia and 
the temple. That the Thebans were in the wrong, according to 
Hellenic international law, is shown by their giving up the bodies, 
without insisting on the Athenians quitting Oropia (iv. 101 init.), 
when they had recovered the temple. 

The clause καὶ οὐκ ἂν αὐτούς is really opposed to what has 

VOL. 1. T 


102. 4. 


274 THUCYDIDES. 


preceded, but is expressed as though coordinate with it. The 
Boeotians knew that Oropia was de facto subject to the Athenians, 
and they also knew that the Athenians could not bury the dead 
bodies, although lying in their own country, without the permission 
of the Boeotians. Their answer was a sophism, which in effect 
would deny the right of burial to the conquerors of a new territory, 
if for any reason they could not obtain possession of their dead, 
unless they first renounced their conquest. Both clauses, νομίζοντες 
...elva, and καὶ οὐκ dy... ἐκείνων, give a reason for the second part 
of the answer, εἰ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων, αὐτοὺς γιγνώσκειν τὸ ποιητέον, ‘ they 
should themselves decide what was to be done;’ while the first part, 
ei μὲν ἐν τῇ Βοιωτίᾳ εἰσίν, ἀπιόντας ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀποφέρεσθαι τὰ σφέτερα, 
is justified in the words τὸ δὲ ᾿Εκ τῆς ἑαυτῶν... ἃ ἀπαιτοῦσιν. 

δῆθεν is to be taken either 1)* with ἐσπένδοντο, or 2) with τῆς ἐκείνων. 
Either τ)" the Boeotians profess that it is unnecessary to make a 
truce when the land in question belongs to the Athenians, or 2) they 
are unwilling to admit indirectly the Athenian claim to Oropia. 


ὡρμῶντο δὲ ἐκ τῆς "Hedvos, ἣν αὐτοὶ εἶχον ἐμπόριον ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ 
ποταμοῦ ἐπιθαλάσσιον, πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι σταδίους ἀπέχον ἀπὸ τῆς νῦν 
πόλεως, ἣν ᾿Αμφίπολιν “Ayvav ὠνόμασεν, ὅτι ἐπ᾿ ἀμφότερα περιῤῥέοντος 
τοῦ Στρυμόνος, διὰ τὸ περιέχειν αὑτήν, τείχει μακρῷ ἀπολαβὼν ἐκ ποταμοῦ 
ἐς ποταμὸν περιφανῆ ἐς θάλασσάν τε καὶ τὴν ἥπειρον ᾧκισεν. 

Thucydides means to say, a) that Hagnon called the city Amphi- 
polis=‘a two-fronted city,’ because on either side it was surrounded 
by the Strymon, and was conspicuous both from the land and 
from the sea, δ) that the portion of land within the bend of the river 
he cut off by a wall when founding the city. The two statements, 
though disparate in meaning, are closely combined in grammatical 
construction. The reason for the name of the city is given in the 
subordinate clauses, én’ ἀμφότερα... τοῦ Στρυμόνος, περιφανῆ. . . ἤπειρον, 
not in the verb ᾧκισεν, nor in the participle ἀπολαβών. 

διὰ τὸ περιέχειν αὐτήν, either 1)* ‘ because he wanted to enclose 


᾽ 


it ;’ or 2) a repetition of περιῤῥέοντος τοῦ Στρύμονος, ‘ because the 
river surrounded it.’ 
For the dates of the different foundations of Ennea Hodoi or 


Amphipolis see note on i. 103. 1. 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 275 


οὐ καθεῖτο τείχη. 1038. 5. 
I. e. there were no walls going down to the bridge and com- 
municating with the town. 


Θουκυδίδην τὸν "Oddpou ὃς τάδε ξυνέγραψεν. 4104. 4. 
For the conduct of Thucydides with regard to the loss of 
Amphipolis see note on v. 26. 5. 


πόλεώς τε ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ οὐ στερισκόμενοι καὶ κινδύνου παρὰ δόξαν ἀφιέ- 106. τ. 
μένοι. 

ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ, either 1) scil. τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις, being treated with the 
same lenity as the Athenians; or 2)* remaining in possession 
of their city as they were before. 


ἐχομένης δὲ τῆς ᾿Αμφιπόλεως, οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐς μέγα δέος κατέστησαν, 108. 1. 
ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι μέχρι μὲν τοῦ Στρυμόνος ἦν πάροδος Θεσσαλῶν διαγόντων 
ἐπὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους σφῶν τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις" τῆς δὲ γεφύρας μὴ κρατούν- 
των, ἄνωθεν μὲν μεγάλης οὔσης ἐπὶ πολὺ λίμνης τοῦ ποταμοῦ, τὰ δὲ πρὸς 
Ἡιόνα τριήρεσι τηρουμένων, οὐκ ἂν δύνασθαι προελθεῖν’ τότε δὲ ῥάδια 
ἤδη ἐνομίζετο γεγενῆσθαι. 
τηρουμένων, 501]. τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων. 
οὐκ ἂν δύνασθαι x.r.A. is governed by some word such as ἐνόμισαν, 
Partly gathered from the subjective character of the preceding 
Sentence, partly supplied in evopifero. 


ἔστι δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως διορύγματος ἔσω προὔχουσα, καὶ ὁ "Ades αὐτῆς 109. 2. 
Spos ὑψηλὸν τελευτᾷ ἐς τὸ Αἰγαῖον πέλαγος. 

ἔσω is said not, as might be expected, with respect to the main- 
land, but with respect to the peninsula and to Mount Athos, which 
was the boundary of the lower district called Acté, or coastland. 


al οἰκοῦνται ξυμμίκτοις ἔθνεσι βαρβάρων διγλώσσων καί τι καὶ Χαλκιδικὸν 109, 4. 
ὡς, βραχύ, τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον Πελασγικὸν τῶν καὶ Λῆμνόν ποτε καὶ ᾿Αθήνας 
κα σηνῶν οἰκησάντων, καὶ Βισαλτικὸν καὶ Κρηστωνικὸν καὶ “H8aves.. 

For the Pelasgians and their language cp. note on i. 3. 4. 


οἱ δὲ πράσσοντες αὐτῷ, εἰδότες ὅτι ἥξοι, καὶ προσελθόντες τινὲς αὐτῶν 110. 2. 
Acilpa ὀλίγοι, ἐτήρουν τὴν πρόσοδον, καὶ ὡς ἤσθοντο παρόντα, ἐσκομίζ- 
“Son παρ᾽ αὑτοὺς ἐγχειρίδια ἔχοντας ἄνδρας ψιλοὺς ἑπτά. 
T 2 


110. 2. 


118. Ie 


117. 1. 


2. 


276 THUCYDIDES. 


The words καὶ προσελθόντες... ὀλίγοι are not to be taken with 
ἐτήρουν and ἐσκομίζουσι, but form a parenthesis (Ξε προσελθόντων τινῶν) 
and refer to a part only of the main subject. 


καὶ ὁ Βρασίδας ἰδὼν τὸ ξύνθημα ἔθει δρόμῳ, ἀναστήσας τὸν στρατὸν 
ἐμβοήσαντά τε ἀθρόον καὶ ἔκπληξιν πολλὴν τοῖς ἐν τῇ πόλει παρασχόντα. 

ἐμβοήσαντά τε ἀθρόον. ΑΒ elsewhere, the participle of the aorist, 
like the aorist itself, is used historically, i.e. simply to indicate the 
occurrence of an event without any specification of time. Thus 
the action referred to in ἐμβοήσαντα, so far from preceding that of 
ἀναστήσας, is in fact subsequent to it, ‘who then raised a shout.’ 
Cp. for a like indefinite use of the aorist ii. 68 init. “Apyos τὸ 
᾿Αμφιλοχικὸν καὶ ᾿Αμφιλοχίαν τὴν ἄλλην ἔκτισε... .᾿Αμφίλοχος ὁ ᾿Αμφιάρεω 
... ὁμώνυμον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδι “Apyos ὀνομάσας. Cp. notes on i. 101. 
3, 1. 49. 4, iv. 4.1, 48. 1, vi. 14. 


Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ καὶ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἅμα ἦρι τοῦ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους εὐθὺς 
ἐκεχειρίαν ἐποιήσαντο ἐνιαύσιον, νομίσαντες ᾿Αθηναῖοι μὲν... Λακεδαιμόνιοι 
δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἡγούμενοι, ἅπερ ἔδεισαν, φοβεῖσθαι, καὶ γενομένης 
ἀνακωχῆς κακῶν καὶ ταλαιπωρίας μᾶλλον ἐπιθυμήσειν αὐτοὺς πειρασαμένους 
ξυναλλαγηῆναί τε καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας σφίσιν ἀποδόντας σπονδὰς ποιήσασθαι καὶ ἐς 
τὸν πλείω χρόνον. τοὺς γὰρ δὴ ἄνδρας περὶ πλείονος ἐποιοῦντο κομίσασθαι 
ὡς ἔτι Βρασίδας εὐτύχει καὶ ἔμελλον, ἐπὶ μεῖζον χωρήσαντος αὐτοῦ καὶ 
ἀντίπαλα καταστήσαντος, τῶν μὲν στέρεσθαι, τοῖς 8 ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου ἀμυνόμενοι 
κινδυνεύειν καὶ κρατήσειν. 

τοὺς γὰρ δὴ ἄνδρας «.7.A. The connection with the previous sentence 
is as follows: 1) The Lacedaemonians divining the apprehensions 
of the Athenians, and wanting to recover the captives, made a 
temporary peace: for they were anxious to recover their men while 
the good fortune of Brasidas lasted. 

περὶ πλείονος, they valued the recovery of their men ‘ more highly’ 
than anything else, and in particular more highly than the prospect 
of further success, or even of ultimate victory. 

στέρεσθαι here=simply ‘ remain deprived of,’ not necessarily ‘ be 
deprived of them’ by the execution of the Athenian threat mentioned 
in iv. 41 init. ἣν δ᾽ of Πελοποννήσιοι πρὸ τούτον és τὴν γῆν ἐσβάλλωσιν, 
ἐξαγαγόντες ἀποκτεῖναι. For while the prisoners remained at Athens 
there was no likelihood of an invasion of Attica. 


Lub idt ha 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 277 


τοῖς δέ, not ‘with the rest of their forces,’ for ‘their forces’ 117. 2. 
have nowhere been previously mentioned; but ‘against the Athe- 
nians, the dat. being governed by the idea of ‘ fighting’ contained 
in the words which follow. Cp. note on ii. 100. 6. 

κομίσασθαι is to be taken closely with ὡς ἔτι Βρασίδας εὐτύχει. ‘To 
recover their men while the good fortune of Brasidas lasted, was 
their great object. On the other hand (καί, cp. note on iv. 99) there 
was a danger if he carried his successes further, and established an 
equality, that they would remain deprived of them, 2)* even although 

they might be finally victorious.’ καί, concurrently with the loss of 
their prisoners they would have a chance of conquering. The 
©mpphasis is on τῶν μὲν στέρεσθαι: the antithetical form has got the 
better of the logical point of the sentence. Cp. ii. 42 fin. τοὺς μὲν 
πα μωρεῖσθαι τῶν δὲ ἐφίεσθαι. 

But 4) καί may have another meaning, and be taken more closely 
Ὑν κρατήσειν, which it immediately precedes, ‘even their chance 
&f victory would be doubtful.’ In this case both clauses are equally 
<mphatic, and represent a disadvantage which might ensue from 
=a.llowing Brasidas to continue the campaign. 

Mr. Grote objects to any such mode of rendering this passage, 
that if Brasidas had carried his successes further the Lacedae- 
®monians would have had more places to give up, and therefore 

wnore chance of recovering their men. It may be replied that the 
Lacedaemonians only consider two alternatives, making peace now, 
© fighting on until they had taken Athens. They prefer the former, 
‘which would restore to them the prisoners, whereas in the other case 
they might be deprived of them for an indefinite time. 

2) Another turn is given to the passage by Herbst and Classen, 
‘who regard the words τοὺς γάρ «.r.A. as a reflection of the Athenians 
on the motives of the Lacedaemonians, and as the reason of the 
preceding words, μᾶλλον ἐπιθυμήσειν αὐτούς κατ.λ, τοῖς δέ x.r.A. is then 
the emphatic clause, not τῶν μὲν στέρεσθαι. ‘The Lacedaemonians 
would remain deprived indeed of their men, but there would be a 
danger that they would actually (nai) be victorious ;’ κινδυνείειν re- 
ferring to the fears, not of the Lacedaemonians, but of the Athe- 
nians. The rest of the explanation given by these two commentators 
is less satisfactory than their view of the general connection, which 


117. 2. 


118. 


118. 4. 


278 THUCYDIDES. 


is quite consistent with the natural interpretation of the passage 
given above. ‘The Athenians were anxious to make peace, 
because they knew that they could get good terms from the 
Lacedaemonians, who were anxious to recover their prisoners 
before Brasidas met with any disaster.’ 


The chief stipulations of the provisional treaty are,— 

1) The security a) for free access to the Delphic oracle, and 
δ) for the protection of its treasures. Considering that the oracle 
was notoriously favourable to the Lacedaemonians, it was deemed 
necessary for the Athenians to assert an equal share in it (cp. 
for the general sense Aristoph. Birds, 188,— 

εἶθ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, ἣν ἱέναι βουλώμεθα 

Πυθώδε, Βοιωτοὺς δίοδον αἰτούμεθα). 
The second provision may possibly refer to the intention which 
the Corinthians expressed at the beginning of the war of con- 
verting the treasures of the temple to the use of the confederacy, 
i. 121 med. 

2) The remainder of the treaty asserts the ‘uti possidetis.’ 
This principle applied especially to Pylos, Cythera, Nisaea, which 
had been won by the Athenians, to Amphipolis, and the other 
towns in Thrace which had joined Brasidas, or been taken by 
him, and to the territory of Troezen, upon which the Athenians 
appear to have encroached when they cut off the peninsula of 
Methoné, iv. 45. For ἐν Τροιζῆνι, put for ἐν τῇ Τροιζηνίδι, cp. note 
on iv. 25. 2. 

3) The Peloponnesians are allowed to sail along their own 
coast and that of their allies in small trading vessels, but not in 
ships of war. 


4) Provision is made for diplomatic intercourse, for arbitration, 
and for the extradition of deserters. 

The whole form of the treaty, especially the words of the last 
clause, ἰόντες és Λακεδαίμονα διδάσκετε, show that the terms of it had 


been first agreed upon at Sparta, and were afterwards sent to 
Athens for acceptance. 


τοὺς δὲ ἐν Νισαίᾳ καὶ Μινώᾳ μὴ ὑπερβαίνοντας τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 279 


πυλῶν τῶν παρὰ τοῦ Νίσου ἐπὶ τὸ Ποσειδώνιον, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Ποσειδωνίου 118. 4. 
εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὴν γέφυραν τὴν ἐς Μινώαν. 

Having regard to the direction of the road, the gates of the 
temple of Nisus, (or possibly the entrance to a statue of Nisus 


near the city,) are spoken of as the ‘gates leading from the temple 
of Nisus.’ 


περὶ δὲ ras ἡμέρας ταύτας, als ἐπήρχοντο, Σκιώνη ἐν τῇ Παλλήνῃ πόλις 120. 1. 

ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων πρὸς Βρασίδαν. 

ἐπήρχοντο, ‘they were coming and going.’ But the word is 

doubtful, because the imperfect of ἔρχομαι is not found in Attic 
Prose. It is therefore proposed by Herbst (on Cobet’s Emen- 
lations, p. 10) to make it the imperfect of ἐπάρχομαι, which is 
Supposed to=éomevdorro c. 119 init. supra. 

But a more general word seems to be required in this place. 
INiot ‘ about the time when they were making the offerings at the 
W-atification of the treaty,’ but ‘when they were ratifying the 
treaty.’ We must therefore adhere, though with some doubt, to 
the received interpretation. We cannot tell whether ἐπήρχοντο 
w-efers to the transaction of business connected with the truce, or 
to the negotiations which followed it, and which may have begun 
&mmediately. For Scioné revolted only two days after the con- 
<lusion of the truce (c. 122 fin.) 


τριήρει μὲν φιλίᾳ προπλεούσῃ, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐν κελητίῳ ἄπωθεν ἐφεπόμενος, 120. 2. 
«ὅπως, εἰ μέν τινι τοῦ κέλητος μείζονι πλοίῳ περιτυγχάνοι, ἡ τριήρης ἀμύνῃ 
«ιὐτῷ, ἀντιπάλον δὲ ἄλλης τριήρους ἐπιγενομένης, οὐ πρὸς τὸ ἔλασσον 
τνομίζων τρέψεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ναῦν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ αὑτὸν διασώσειν. 

αὐτῇ is here the reading of nearly all the MSS. 1) It has been 
altered by Hermann and others into αὐτή, This would mean that 
the mere appearance of the trireme would be a sufficient protection 
against any larger vessel not a ship of war. But the explanation 
of αὐτή is forced; it is better 2)* to read αὐτῷ, scil. τῷ κέλητι, oF 

τῷ Βρασίδᾳ, the ἢ in αὐτῇ being probably a repetition of ἢ in the 
previous word. 


ἰδίᾳ δὲ ἐταινίουν re καὶ προσήρχοντο ὥσπερ ἀθλητῆ. 121. 1. 
The same doubt arises about προσήρχοντο as about ἐπήρχοντο 


1211. 


121, 2. 


123. 1. 


125. 1. 


126, 2. 


280 THUCYDIDES. 


c. 120. 1, supra. If from προσάρχομαι, it means ‘made offerings’ 
of flowers, etc. to Brasidas, i.e. threw flowers upon him, an honour 
constantly shown to great athletes, and other popular favourites. 
See Herbst, p. 7. Cp. Plato, Theaet. 168 Ὁ, ταῦτα, ὦ Θεόδωρε, τῷ 
ἑταίρῳ σου eis βοήθειαν προσηρξάμην κατ᾽ ἐμὴν δύναμιν, σμικρὰ awd 
σμικρῶν. But the ordinary rendering gives a sufficient sense, ‘came 
up to him,’ i.e. to congratulate him. 


ἡγούμενος καὶ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους βοηθῆσαι ἂν ὡς ἐς νῆσον, καὶ βουλόμενος 
φθάσαι. 

καί, ‘that the Athenians as well as himself would come with an 
armed force’ (though with a different object). βοηθεῖν need not 
mean ‘come to the rescue ;’ cp. iii. 24 fin. τῆς βοηθείας παυσάμενοι, 
‘desisting from the pursuit.’ 


καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐδέξατο ὁ Βρασίδας οὐ νομίζων ἀδικεῖν, ὅτι ἐν τῇ ἐκεχειρίᾳ 
φανερῶς προσεχώρησαν ἔστι γὰρ ἃ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνεκάλει τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις 
παραβαίνειν τὰς σπονδάς. διὸ καὶ οἱ Μενδαῖοι μᾶλλον ἐτόλμησαν, τήν τε 
τοῦ Βρασίδου γνώμην ὁρῶντες ἑτοίμην, τεκμαιρόμενοι καὶ awd τῆς Σκιώνης ὅτι 
ov προὐδίδου, καὶ ἅμα κιτ.λ. 

διό refers to what precedes, and is further explained in what 
follows. ‘And therefore (i.e. because they saw that Brasidas was 
already charging upon the Athenians a violation of the treaty) 
the Mendaeans were encouraged to revolt, observing as they did 
the zeal of Brasidas, which they inferred also from his unwillingness 
to betray the cause of the Scionaeans.’ It is evident that Brasidas 
wanted, if possible, to set aside the treaty. 


καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, διαφερομένων αὐτῶν, ἠγγέλθη, ὅτι καὶ of ᾿Ιλλυριοὶ per’ 
᾿Αῤῥιβαίου προδόντες Περδίκκαν γεγένηνται. 

καί, either ‘besides other reasons for retreat,’ or ‘in addition to 
the army which he had, that Arrhibaeus had been reinforced by 
the Illyrians,’ 


ἀγαθοῖς yap εἶναι ὑμῖν προσήκει τὰ πολέμια ov διὰ ξυμμάχων παρουσίαν 
ἑκάστοτε, ἀλλὰ δι οἰκείαν ἀρετήν, καὶ μηδὲν πλῆθος πεφοβῆσθαι ἑτέρων, 
ot γε μηδὲ ἀπὸ πολιτειῶν τοιούτων ἥκετε, ἐν αἷς οὐ πολλοὶ ὀλίγων 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 281 


ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ πλειόνων μᾶλλον ἐλάσσους, οὐκ ἄλλῳ τινὶ κτησάμενοι τὴν 136. 2. 
δυναστείαν ἣ τῷ μαχόμενοι κρατεῖν. 
τοιούτων, 501}. ὧν οἱ πολίται πλῆθος πεφόβηνται, refers to what has 
preceded. ‘For you do not come from cities in which men fear 
a multitude, but from cities in which not the many rule over the 
few but the few over the many.’ The antecedent to ἐν ais is really 
to be obtained, not from ἀπὸ τοιούτων πολιτειῶν, but from ἀπὸ μὴ 
τοιούτων πολιτειῶν implied in the previous clause. ‘You do not come 
from cities of a kind,’ implies ‘You come from cities of another 
kind, and in those cities not the many, etc.’ Cp. vi. 68 fin. ol 
geev γάρ, ὅτι περὶ πατρίδος ἔσται ὁ ἀγών, ἐγὼ δέ, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν πατρίδι, ἐξ 
ἧς κρατεῖν δεῖ ἣ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἀποχωρεῖν. 


βαρβάρους δέ, obs νῦν ἀπειρίᾳ δέδιτε, μαθεῖν χρὴ ἐξ ὧν τε προηγώνισθε 126. 4. 
“τοῖς Μακεδόσιν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐγὼ εἰκάζω τε καὶ ἄλλων ἀκόῃ ἐπίσταμαι, 
«υὐ δεινοὺς ἐσομένους. καὶ γὰρ ὅσα μὲν τῷ ὄντι ἀσθενῆ ὄντα τῶν πολεμίων 
«ϑόκησιν ἔχει ἰσχύος, διδαχὴ ἀληθὴς προσγενομένη περὶ αὐτῶν ἐθάρσυνε μᾶλλον 
“ποὺς ἀμυνομένους" οἷς δὲ βεβαίως τι πρόσεστιν ἀγαθόν, μὴ προειδώς τις ἂν 
«ιὑτοῖς τολμηρότερον προσφέροιτο. 
γάρ. You ought to know (μαθεῖν χρή), for to know will do you 
good. ὅσα μέν is the more emphatic clause. ‘If an enemy is weak 
his weakness had better be revealed, although if he is strong his 
strength had better be concealed.’ 


οὔτε yap τάξιν ἔχοντες αἰσχυνθεῖεν ἂν λιπεῖν τινὰ χώραν βιαζόμενοι, 7 τε 126. 5. 
φυγὴ καὶ ἡ ἔφοδος αὐτῶν ἴσην ἔχουσα δόξαν τοῦ καλοῦ ἀνεξέλεγκτον καὶ 
τὸ ἀνδρεῖον ἔχει. 

‘ Truly it would be a strange thing to use so noble and costly a 
Machine as a British army, with all its national reputation to sup- 
Port, as lightly as those Spanish multitudes, collected in a day, 
Clispersed in an hour, reassembled again without difficulty, incapable 
Of attaining, and consequently incapable of losing, any military 
¥reputation.—Napier, Peninsular War, bk. xi. c. i. 


τοῦ Te ἐς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν πιστότερον τὸ ἐκφοβήσειν ἡμᾶς ἀκινδύνως ἡγοῦνται. 126. 5. 
τὸ ἐκφοβήσειν. ‘The attempt to terrify us without danger to 
themselves.’ For the future cp. note on iii. 66. 2. 


128. 1. 


128. 5. 


129. 


282 THUCYDIDES, 


ὁ δὲ γνοὺς προεῖπε τοῖς μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ τριακοσίοις, ὃν ᾧετο μᾶλλον ἂν drew 
τῶν λόφων, χωρήσαντας πρὸς αὐτὸν δρόμῳ, ὡς τάχιστα ἕκαστος δύναται, 
ἄνευ τάξεως πειρᾶσαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐκκροῦσαι τοὺς ἤδη ἐπόντας βαρβάρους, πρὶν 
καὶ τὴν πλείονα κύκλωσιν σφῶν αὐτόσε mpoopitat. 

ὃν ᾧετο κτλ. Either 1) which he thought his troops could best 
occupy; or 2)* which he thought the barbarians were most likely 
to occupy. The latter explanation is not inconsistent with ἐπόντας 
which follows, for although the enemy had occupied the defile, and 
some of them were already on the hill (τοὺς ἤδη ἐπόντας BapBdpovs), 
they might not yet have taken complete possession of it. 

ἑπόντας is a correction of the MS. reading ἐπιόντας. Cp. infra 
131. 2, προσβαλόντες δ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ κράτος οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ μάχῃ ἐκκρούσαντες 
τοὺς ἐπόντας κιτιλ., Where ἐπόντας has the authority of one good MS., 
the Clarendonianus. In both places the word ἐκκροῦσαι is strongly 
against ἐπιόντας. For we can hardly speak of ‘ dislodging’ those 
who are ‘attacking.’ And ἐπιόντας would be unsupported by any- 
thing in the context. 


ἀπὸ τούτον re πρῶτον Περδίκκας Βρασίδαν re πολέμιον ἐνόμισε, καὶ és 
τὸ λοιπὸν Πελοποννησίων τῇ μὲν γνώμῃ δι᾿ ᾿Αθηναίους οὐ ξύνηθες μῖσος εἶχε, 
τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων ξυμφόρων διαναστὰς ἔπρασσεν, ὅτω τρόπῳ τάχιστα τοῖς 
μὲν ξυμβήσεται, τῶν δὲ ἀπαλλάξεται. 

τῇ γνώμῃ and δι’ ᾿Αθηναίους are to be taken with οὐ ξύνηθες. Per- 
diccas cherished a feeling of hatred towards the Peloponnesians, to 
which the mind of one who was an enemy of the Athenians might 
have been expected to be a stranger. 

τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων ξυμφόρων διαναστάς, lit. ‘departing from’ (i. 6. not 
regarding) ‘his necessary, or most pressing, interests.’ 


An inscription is extant containing the names of those who fell 
a) in a battle, or probably two battles which are unknown to us, 
δ) at Potidaea (three names only), c) at Amphipolis, 4) ἐπὶ Θράκης, 
e) at Pylos, 7) at Sermylia, g) at Singus (one name only in the case 
of the last five places). Kirchhoff (Ὁ. 1. Α. vol. i. p. 200) assigns 
the inscription to 425, the capture of Pylos; Mr. Hicks (Newton 
and Hicks, Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part I. p.106), 
following Boeckh (C. I. G. vol.i.no. 171), to 423, and to the expe- 


NOTES, BOOK IV. 283 


dition against Mendé and Scioné recorded in the present chapter. 129. 
It may be conjectured that an Athenian soldier fell in defending 

the bridge at Amphipolis (iv. 103 fin.) and that some trifling en- 
gagement, which is not mentioned by Thucydides, took place at 
Potidaea (cp. iv. 135) Sermylia (or Sermylé) and Singus (see note 

on v. 18). But such hypotheses can never be brought to the test, 

itis therefore better to refrain from them. 

The names of certain ἔγγρ[αφοι], τοξόται, and ξένοι are recorded 
in the inscription. Boeckh compares iv. 129 init. (ὁπλίταις δὲ χιλίοις 
ἑαυτῶν καὶ τοξόταις ἑξακοσίοις καὶ Θρᾳξὶ μισθωτοῖς χιλίοις καὶ ἄλλοις τῶν 
αὐτόθεν ξυμμάχων πελτασταῖς), and supposes the ἔγγρ[αφοι] to have 

been metics enrolled among the citizen hoplites (ὁπλῖται ἑαυτῶν). 
But, again, such combinations are hazardous, for the Athenian army 
‘would probably be composed of the same elements on many dif- 
ferent occasions. We know of no one time at which soldiers were 
falling at Potidaea, at Amphipolis, and at Pylos. We are only 
sSure that the inscription cannot be earlier than the capture of Pylos, 
«<r later than the first year of the peace, 421. 
Besides the two similar and more celebrated inscriptions cited in 
the notes on i. 63. 3, 108. 1, we have a list of names (of which 
part was discovered 1834) including the title ἐν Θάσφ]. The latter 
~words may suggest that the inscription is the monument of those 
‘who fell in 465 against the revolted Thasians (i. 100 med., Kirch- 
hoff, no. 432). 


Kai τινος αὐτῷ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἀντειπόντος κατὰ τὸ στασιωτικόν, ὅτι 130, 4. 
οὐκ ἐπέξεισιν, οὐδὲ δέοιτο πολεμεῖν κιτ,λ. 
Cp. note on iv. 69. 2. 


περιτειχιζομένης δὲ τῆς Σκιώνης, Περδίκκας rots τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων 139. 1. 
στρατηγοῖς ἐπικηρυκευσάμενος ὁμολογίαν ποιεῖται πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους 
διὰ τὴν τοῦ Βρασίδου ἔχθραν περὶ τῆς ἐκ τῆς Λύγκου ἀναχωρήσεως, εὐθὺς 
τότε ἀρξάμενος πράσσειν. καὶ ἐτύγχανε γὰρ τότε ᾿Ισχαγόρας ὃ Λακεδαι- 
μόνιος στρατιὰν μέλλων πεζῇ πορεύσειν ὡς Βρασίδαν κιτ.λ. 
For Scioné cp. Aristoph. Wasps, 209 (acted in 422),— 
γὴ Δί᾽ ἦ μοι κρεῖττον ἦν 
τηρεῖν Σκιώγην ἀντὶ τούτου τοῦ πατρός. 
For the fate of the city cp. v. 32 init. 


132. 1. 


135. 1. 


284 THUCYDIDES. 


For εὐθὺς τότε x.r.A. see note on English text. 


τοῦ yap κώδωνος mapevexOevros, οὕτως ἐς τὸ διάκενον, πρὶν cwavedOcim Sa > 
τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν, ἡ πρόσθεσις ἐγένετο. 

οὕτως refers to τοῦ κώδωνος παρενεχθέντος, ‘ thus—taking this oppor --ὠἶν “ααὐμωϊ. 
tunity.’ Cp. iii, 96 med. τὴν γὰρ γνώμην εἶχε τἄλλα καταστρεψάμενοκ--ω, τα, νο 
οὕτως ἐπὶ ᾿Οφιονέας. . . στρατεῦσαι ὕστερον. 

Cp. the orders issued by Peisthetaerus to the builders of Nephe=» sare 
lococcygia, Birds 842,— 


κωδωνοφορῶν περίτρεχε͵ ----καὶ κάθευδ᾽ ἐκεῖ. 


BOOK ν. 


Tov δ᾽ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους, al μὲν ἐνιαύσιοι σπονδαὶ διελέλυντο μέχρι 1. 1. 
"Πυθίων" καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκεχειρίᾳ ᾿Αθηναῖοι Δηλίους ἀνέστησαν ἐκ Δήλου... 
καὶ ol μὲν Δήλιοι ᾿Ατραμύττιον Φαρνάκου δόντος αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ ᾧκησαν, 
οὕτως ὡς ἕκαστος ὥρμητο. Κλέων δὲ ᾿Αθηναίους πείσας ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ Θράκης ἃ. I. 
χωρία ἐξέπλευσε μετὰ τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν. 

The truce expired in Elaphebolion, March—April. The Pythian 
games were celebrated in the Delphic month Bucatius, which 
appears, from inscriptions found at Delphi, to have corresponded 
to the Attic Metageitnion (August—September). See Kirchhoff, 
Monatsb. der Berl. Acad. 1864, p. 129 foll. And it is clear from 
v. 12 that the battle of Amphipolis took place at the end of the 
summer. Nothing is said by Thucydides of operations preceding 
the expedition to Amphipolis. Therefore the words διελέλυντο 
μέχρι Πυθίων cannot imply that the war was renewed before the 
Pythian games. 

διελέλυντο. Either 1) ‘the truce of a year had expired, having 

Continued till the Pythian games;’ which is said in the same 
manner as μεχρὶ τοῦδε ὡρίσθω ὑμῶν ἡ βραδυτής, i. 71 med., lit. ‘ let 
your sluggishness, having continued so long, here have an end. 
“The meaning is that the truce, which should have come to an end 
at the beginning of spring, had by a tacit understanding been pro- 
Longed until the Pythian games; the interval was an ἀνακωχὴ 
ἄσπονδος, like that between the Athenians and Corinthians in 
v. 32 fin. 

Or 2) the emphasis may fall on διελέλυντο, lit. ‘the truce of a 
year had expired until the Pythian games;’ in other words, not 
the truce but a state of affairs in which the truce was no longer 
in force (indicated by the pluperfect) continued until the Pythian 
games. In this case the silence of Thucydides must be held to 
imply what he does not actually say—that there was no renewal 
of the war, although preparations may have been making during 
the interval for the expedition to Amphipolis. 


286 THUCYDIDES. 


2.1. The word ἐκεχειρία (cp. c. 2 init.), which follows, refers either to 
the period during which the truce with the Peloponnesians was 
informally protracted, or to the sacred truce observed during the 
festival. The purification of Delos would be naturally connected 
with the celebration of the Pythian games. 

οὕτως ὡς ἕκαστος ὥρμητο, i.e. each man went to Adramyttium 
when and how he pleased; there was no regular new settlement. 


2.3. καὶ προσλαβὼν αὐτόθεν ὁπλίτας τῶν φρουρῶν κατέπλευσεν és τὸν Koho- 
φωνίων λιμένα, τῶν Τορωναίων ἀπέχοντα οὐ πολὺ τῆς πόλεως. 

No mention is found elsewhere of this ‘harbour of the Colopho- 
nians.’ But Strabo (vii. p. 330), Photius, and others, speak of a 
κωφὸς λιμήν near Toroné, as Xen: Hell. ii. 4. 31 speaks of one at 
or near the Piraeus. And a ‘landlocked harbour’ (Leake, North 
Greece, iii. p. 119), just south of Toroné, is still called Kufé. 
Hence Pluygers (Cobet. Nov. Lect. p. 381) conjectures Κωφόν, 
and Leake Κωφῶν, for Κολοφωνίων. For the meaning of κωφὸς λιμήν, 
a harbour so completely protected that the sound of the waves 
was not heard in it, cp. Plut. Mor. p. 778 C, Wyttenb. vol. iv. 
part I. p. 122, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀκλύστῳ λιμένι καὶ κωφῷ: The emendation 
is probable but by no means necessary. For we cannot be certain 
that there was not near Toroné a harbour which for some unknown 
reason was called the ‘ harbour of the Colophonians.’ 


. 8. 2. οἱ δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι φθάνουσιν οἷ τε ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν Advres τὴν Τορώνην καὶ ὁ 
πεζὸς ἐπισπόμενος αὐτοβοεὶ κατὰ τὸ διῃρημένον τείχους τοῦ παλαιοῦ 
ξυνεσπεσών. 

αὐτοβοεί, ‘dashing in immediately together with the enemy 
(ξυνεσπεσών) on the retreat of Pasitelidas, a variation of the 
common phrase αὐτοβοεὶ ἑλεῖν, used to avoid tautology, ἑλόντες 
having just preceded. 


4.4. καὶ καταστάντες ἐκ τῶν τειχῶν ἐπολέμουν. 
Either 1) ‘and there taking up a position carried on war from 
the two forts ;’ 
ried on a continual war from the two forts.’ 


or 2)* connecting καταστάντες with ἐπολέμουν, ‘ car- 


δ. 2. τούτοις οὖν ὁ Φαίαξ ἐντυχὼν τοῖς κομιζομένοις, 


NOTES, BOOK V. 287. 


Either 1) ‘who were returning home,’ or 2) ‘being those who δ. 2. 
were on their way,’ the article referring to the preceding words rois 
ἐκ Μεσσήνης ἐποίκοις ἐκπεπτωκόσιν. Cp. note on iv. 38. 2. 


Βρασίδας δὲ πυνθανόμενος ταῦτα ἀντεκάθητο καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τῷ Κερδυλίῳ. 6. 3. 
ἐπὶ τῷ Κερδυλίῳ goes with ἀντεκάθητο, not with καὶ αὐτός, or καί would 

be inappropriate. For Cleon was not stationed upon Cerdylium. 

Cp. c. 8 init. καταβὰς καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Κερδυλίου. 


οὐ βουλόμενος αὐτοὺς διὰ τὸ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καθημένους βαρύνεσθαι. 7. 2. 
Cp. note on i. 2. 5 ; and iv. 63. 1. 


καὶ ἐχρήσατο τῷ τρόπῳ, ᾧπερ καὶ ἐς τὴν Πύλον εὐτυχήσας ἐπίστευσέ τι 7. 3. 


ᾧπερ is to be taken both with εὐτυχήσας and with ἐπίστευσε. 


καὶ τὴν μείζω παρασκευὴν περιέμενεν, οὐχ ὡς τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ, ἣν ἀναγκάζηται, 7. 3. 
ϑτερισχήσων, ἄλλ᾽ ὡς κύκλῳ περιστὰς βίᾳ αἱρήσων τὴν πόλιν. 

‘Not under the idea that he would by the help of his reinforce- 
mments get the better without risk, should he be compelled to fight ’— 
that was not his meaning, ‘but he was going to surround and 
storm the city.’ 


ὥστε καί, μηχανὰς ὅτι οὐ κατῆλθεν ἔχων, ἁμαρτεῖν ἐδόκει" ἕλεῖν γὰρ ἂν 7. 5. 
τὴν πόλιν διὰ τὸ ἔρημον. 

1) κατά in κατῆλθεν has been taken in the sense of κατά in κατάγειν, 
‘when he landed in Chalcidice.’ But even if this meaning of the 
word were allowable it would still be strange that Cleon should not 
have brought siege-engines from Athens. And the meaning re- 
quired by the context is not ‘landed,’ but 2) ‘came to the town.’ 
Whether the word will bear this meaning is uncertain. 

Bekker adopts the correction οὐκ ἀνῆλθε, i.e. ‘that he did not 
come up from the sea,’ but ἀνα- gives an unnecessary degree of 
precision, since ἀνῆλθεν is subordinate to ἔχων. We require ‘he 
had not brought siege-engines,’ not ‘when he came up to the city,’ 
but simply ‘whén he came to the city.’ Better οὐκ ἦλθεν, though 
the departure from the text is slightly greater. 


288 THUCYDIDES. 


el yap δείξειε τοῖς ἐναντίοις τό τε πλῆθος καὶ τὴν ὅπλισιν ἀναγκαίαν οὖσαν 
τῶν μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκ ἂν ἡγεῖτο μᾶλλον περιγενέσθαι ἣ ἄνευ προόψεύώς τε 
αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσεως. 

‘He did not think he would be more likely to succeed than if 
they did not observe him ’=‘ he thought he would be more likely 
to succeed if they did not observe him.” In the latter words καὶ 
pi)... καταφρονήσεως there is a confusion of two ideas—‘if they 
did not despise him on real grounds,’ and ‘if they despised him on 
unreal grounds,’ between ἄνευ καταφρονήσεως ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος, and pera 
καταφρονήσεως μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος. The two clauses 4 ἄνευ... xaragdpo- 
νήσεως taken together are a somewhat clumsy way of expressing 
el μὴ προίδοιεν, καὶ εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσειαν.. The negative 
in the second clause is pleonastic, as often where a negative ἢδς.-ὄ- 
preceded. For the meaning cp. iv. 126 med. ὅσα μὲν τῷ ὄντι ἀσθενῆῃῃ 
ὄντα τῶν πολεμίων δόκησιν ἔχει ἰσχύος, διδαχὴ ἀληθὴς προσγενομένη wepamm 


9.7. 


αὐτῶν ἐθάρσυνε μᾶλλον τοὺς ἀμυνομένους. 


τὴν δὲ ἐπιχείρησιν ᾧ τρόπῳ διανοοῦμαι ποιεῖσθαι διδάξω, ἵνα μὴ τό Te 
kat ὀλίγον καὶ μὴ ἅπαντας κινδυνεύειν ἐνδεὲς φαινόμενον ἀτολμίαν 
παράσχῃ. 

τέ is slightly misplaced, and there is only a verbal opposition 
between κατ᾽ ὀλίγον and μὴ ἅπαντας, as in i. 36. 3 (see note), τοῖς 
re ξυμπᾶσι καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον. 

Four of the best MSS. read τῷ τε κατ᾽ ὀλίγον.Ό Poppo would read 
μή τῳ τὸ κατ᾽ ὀλίγον, Which is adopted by Classen. 


av δέ, Κλεαρίδα, ὕστερον, . .. αἰφνιδίως ras πύλας ἀνοίξας ἔπεκθεῖν καὶ 
ἐπείγεσθαι ὡς τάχιστα ξυμμίξαι. 

Infinitive for imperative; not found elsewhere in Thucydides, 
except perhaps in vi. 34. 9, παραστῆναι πάντι, (see note,) but not 
uncommon in other writers. 


καὶ τῇδε ὑμῖν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἣ ἀγαθοῖς γενομένοις ἐλευθερίαν re ὑπάρχειν καὶ. 
Λακεδαιμονίων ξνμμάχοις κεκλῆσθαι, 7 ᾿Αθηναίων τε δούλοις, ἣν τὰ ἄριστα 
ἄνευ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ ἣ θανατώσεως πράξητε, καὶ δουλείαν χαλεπωτέραν ἣ 
πρὶν εἴχετε, τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς Ἕλλησι κωλυταῖς γενέσθαι ἔλενθερώσεως. 


δουλείαν iS a cognate accusative after δούλοις or after the verbal 


NOTES, BOOK V’. 289 


idea δούλοις κεκλῆσθαι :----" you will be called slaves, and slaves en- 8. 9. 
during a slavery more cruel.’ Cp. Plato, Rep. 579 D, ἔστιν dpa... 
ὁ τῷ ὄντι τύραννος τῷ ὄντι δοῦλος τὰς μεγίστας θωπείας καὶ δουλείας καὶ 
κόλαξ τῶν πονηροτάτων. τέ after ᾿Αθηναίων corresponds to δέ in τοῖς δὲ 


λοιποῖς Ἕλλησιν. ‘You will be called slaves of the Athenians, but 
Cp. note oni. 11.1. 


More than this, you will be hinderers,’ etc. 


τῷ δὲ Κλέωνι, φανεροῦ γενομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Κερδυλίου καταβάντος, 10. 2. 
tai ἐμ» τῇ πόλει ἐπιφανεῖ οὔσῃ ἔξωθεν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς θυομένου, 


καὶ vaira πράσσοντος, ἀγγέλλεται (προὐκεχωρήκει γὰρ τότε κατὰ τὴν θέαν), 


ὅτε FF τέ στρατιὰ ἅπασα x.t.X. 
σ΄ κῷ»ν Κλέωνι is governed by ἀγγέλλεται Only, not by φανεροῦ γενομένου. 


“ai -α- σχῦτα πράσσοντος, either 1)* the ceremonies of the sacrifice, or 
2) ®& Ene preparations for the sally: cp. supra, τήν re ἔξοδον παρεσκευ- 
«απ ας airds κτλ. In the first case ταῦτα πράσσοντος contrasts the 


δὲ ἐξ 3G fice with the more warlike preparations. πράσσοντος may be 


P= χ τὰ Vel either 1)* to φανεροῦ γενομένον, to which καταβάντος and θυο- 
M«2-<>ws are subordinate, or 2) to καταβάντος and θυομένου, the word 


MER=E becoming subordinate to φανεροῦ γενομένου. But then ταῦτα 
8 F< <2 corres, if we are to escape tautology, must refer, not to the 


SSR < w-fice, but to the preparations for the sally. 


“"- ἡ μαίνειν re ἅμα ἐκέλευεν ἀναχώρησιν καὶ παρήγγειλε τοῖς ἀπιοῦσιν, ἐπὶ 10. 3. 
τ “- ιὠὐξόνυμον κέρας, ὥσπερ μόνον οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν, ὑπάγειν ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ηϊόνος. 
~ ww sis ἀπιοῦσιν. We should expect ἀπιοῦσιν, but the article refers to 
Ἐς τ Ξαύρησν. There is however a slight inaccuracy in the expression, 
™= at the time of giving the order the retreat had not yet begun. 
Rie ‘he bade them sound a retreat, giving at the same time a 
“SB -ῷ] order to those who were the retreating force that they 
“Suld withdraw upon their left wing in the direction of Eion.’ 
BW. τοῖς κομιζομένοις v. 5. 2; iv. 33. 2, and notes. 
ὡς δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐδόκει σχολὴ γίγνεσθαι. 10. 4. 
1)* ‘As there appeared to him to be delay.’ For this sense 
SDB. viii 95 med. σχολῇ πληρουμένων, and Aesch. Agam. 1059,— 
σὺ δ᾽ εἴ τι δράσεις τῶνδε, μὴ σχολὴν τίθει. 
Or 2) ‘ As he appeared to have plenty of time’ (a resumption of 


VOL. i. U 


290 THUCYDIDES. 


10. 4- οἰόμενος φθήσεσθαι ἀπελθών above), and therefore did not mind ex- 
posing his unshielded side to the enemy. 


10. 9. καὶ ὁ μὲν Κλέων ὡς τὸ πρῶτον οὐ διενοεῖτο μένειν, εὐθὺς φεύγων «1d. 
Cp. c. 7. med. ἐς μάχην μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ ἤἥλπισέν οἱ ἐπεξιέναι οὐδένα, κατὰ 
θέαν δὲ μᾶλλον ἔφη ἀναβαίνειν τοῦ χωρίου. 


10. 9. οἱ δὲ αὐτοῦ συστραφέντες ὁπλῖται ἐπὶ τὸν λόφον x.7.X. 
That αὐτοῦ is 1) a pronoun, scil. Κλέωνος, and not 2)* as Classen 
supposes, a local adverb, is rendered probable by the opposition of 
ὁ μὲν Κλέων and οἱ δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁπλῖται. 


11.1. καὶ τὴν ἀποικίαν ὡς οἰκιστῇ προσέθεσαν καταβαλόντες τὰ ᾿Αγνώνεια οἶκο- 
δομήματα καὶ ἀφανίσαντες εἴ τι μνημόσυνόν πον ἔμελλεν αὐτοῦ τῆς οἱκίσεως 
περιέσεσθαι, νομίσαντες τὸν μὲν Βρασίδαν σωτῆρά τε σφῶν γεγενῆσθαι καὶ 
ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἅμα τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ξυμμαχίαν φύβῳ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων 
θεραπεύοντες, τὸν δὲ Αγνωνα κατὰ τὸ πολέμιον τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως 
σφίσι ξυμφόρως οὐδ᾽. ἂν ἡδέως τὰς τιμὰς ἔχειν. 

τὰ ᾿Αγνώνεια οἰκοδομήματα, either 1)* the public buildings which 
Hagnon had erected, or 2) the shrine which was dedicated to him 
as to a founder. ὁμοίως ἡδέως, either 1)* so agreeably to them, or 2) 
so agreeably to himself, as formerly. 

If the second interpretatron of ra ᾿Αγνώνεια οἰκοδομήματα and ἡδέως 
(Miiller-Striibing, p. 718) be correct, Hagnon must be supposed 
to have died before this time. He is last mentioned in ii. 95 fin. 
Fle cannot then be identified with the Hagnon of v. 19 fin., 24 med., 
or with Hagnon the father of Theramenes (viii. 68 fin.), who is said 
by Lysias, c. Eratosth. (xii.) 66, to have been one of the πρόβουλοι 
appointed after the Sicilian disaster. 

For the idea cp. the dying speech of the Plataeans, in which 
they urge that the battlefield of Plataea will no longer be ‘agreeable’ 
to the heroes interred there if inhabited by the Thebans (iii. 58). 


18, 1. νομίσαντες οὐδένα καιρὸν ἔτι εἶναι, τῶν τε ᾿Αθηναίων ἥσσῃ ἀπεληλυθότων, 
καὶ οὐκ ἀξιόχρεων αὐτῶν ὄντων δρᾷν τι ὧν κἀκεῖνος ἐπενόει. 

They had two motives for returning. The Athenians had gone 

home defeated, and they were themselves incapable of executing 

what Brasidas on his part had designed: κἀκεῖνος, i.e. Brasidas, 


NOTES, BOOK V. 291 


as contrasted with the Lacedaemonians who succeeded him. The 13. 1. 
Greek and English idioms here differ. In Greek the word καί 
commonly adheres to the standard of comparison (cp. ὥσπερ καί), 
in English the corresponding word adheres to the person or thing 
compared. Cp. for a use of καί in a similar position the note on 
Iv. 62. 4. 


ξυνέβαινε δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αργείους αὐτοῖς τὰς τριακονταέτεις σπονδὰς 14. 4. 
ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδῳ εἶναι, καὶ ἄλλας οὐκ ἤθελον σπένδεσθαι οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι, εἰ μή τις αὐτοῖς 
τὴν Κυνουρίαν γῆν ἀποδώσει' ὥστ᾽ ἀδύνατα εἶναι ἐφαίνετο ᾿Αργείοις καὶ 
᾿Αθηναίοις ἅμα πολεμεῖν. 

‘ So that they felt the impossibility of fighting with the Argives 
and Athenians combined;’ a compressed way of saying, ‘so that 
they would have to fight with the Argives and Athenians combined, 
which appeared impossible.’ 


καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις, ἐπιθυμίᾳ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν ἐκ τῆς 15, 1. 
νῆσου κομίσασθαι: ἦσαν γὰρ οἱ Σπαρτιᾶται αὐτῶν πρῶτοί τε καὶ ὁμοίως 
σφίσι ξυγγενεῖς. 

I.e. the Spartans among them were all of the purest Spartan 
blood. ὁμοίως ξυγγενεῖς, 1) not one more than the other, but equally, 
Telate@ to the first men of the state; or 2) ὁμοίως may=‘cor- 
"spondingly ;’ ‘they were of the first rank, and, as being of the 

first rank, were related to the governing body.’ These words 
Clear ly imply that there were degrees of rank among the Spartans. 
ut Owing to our ignorance of the social state of Sparta the ex- 
Pression is obscure to us, and some of the words may be corrupt. 
he difficulty is considerably increased by the circumstance that 
the 120 Spartans thus described were taken by lot (iv. 8 fin.. διε- 

Coy ἐς τὴν νῆσον τοὺς ὁπλίτας ἀποκληρώσαντες ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν λόχων), 

S. We must suppose therefore only out of others who were equally 

oe αἴης of the first blood. Fither the persons described were 

the Sevyyeveis in any strict sense of the term, or the body to which 
¥Y belonged must have been small, and its members must have 
δου. intermarried. 


πε eid} δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐν ᾿Αμφιπόλει ἧσσα τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐγεγένητο, καὶ ἐτεθνήκει 16. 1. 
2m τε καὶ Βρασίδας, οἶπερ ἀμφοτέρωθεν μάλιστα ἠναντιοῦντο τῇ εἰρήνῃ, 


καὶ 


υ 2 


16. 


I. 


292 THUCYDIDES. 


ὁ μὲν διὰ τὸ εὐτυχεῖν τε καὶ τιμᾶσθαι ἐκ τοῦ πολεμεῖν, ὁ δὲ γενομένης 
ἡσυχίας καταφανέστερος νομίζων ἂν εἶναι κακουργῶν καὶ ἀπιστότερος 
διαβάλλων, τότε δὲ [οἱ ἐν] ἑκατέρᾳ τῇ πόλει σπεύδοντες τὰ μάλεστα τὴν 
ἡγεμονίαν, Πλειστοάναξ τε ὁ Παυσανίου, βασιλεὺς Λακεδαιμονίων, καὶ Νικίας 
ὁ Νικηράτου, πλεῖστα τῶν τότε εὖ φερόμενος ἐν στρατηγίαις, πολλῷ δὴ 
μᾶλλον προεθυμοῦντο K.T.A. 

The words οἱ ἐν after τότε δέ are only found in one fair (Ἐ.} and 
three inferior MSS. (Reg. Lugd. Gr.). They seem to be required 
if the sense is that which is usually given. There is however some 
difficulty in the Greek, σπεύδοντες τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, which more naturally 
means ‘striving after the supremacy /or,’ than ‘striving after the 
supremacy z#, their respective states.’ The word σπεύδειν in the 
absolute sense of ‘ striving after ’ without a dative following, oc-<ut 
rarely if ever in prose. But even if this sense could be supported 
by examples, the words seem hardly applicable to Pleistoanax and 
Nicias, who were not ambitious of increasing their own powe=r in 
the state, but only of keeping themselves and the state out® of 
trouble, while in either sense they are appropriate to Cleon ant 
Brasidas. ‘The words οἱ ἐν therefore, independently of the wal 
of MS. authority in their favour, are better omitted. τότε δεῖ -- °° 
ἡγεμονίαν will then be referred to Cleon and Brasidas, not to pie 
stoanax and Nicias. The apodosis of the whole sentence wil 
begin at Πλειστοάναξ re. 

ἐτεθνήκει Κλέων τε καὶ Βρασίδας... διαβάλλων. The motives he=* 
attributed to Cleon and Brasidas by Thucydides are of course 5 Οἱ 
such as they were conscious of to themselves; they only show the 
light in which their career was regarded by an opponent. 

There is no redeeming feature in Thucydides’ portrait of CleO™ 
‘He was the most violent of the citizens, and exercised the greatest 
influence,’ iii. 36 fin.; iv. 21. He proposes the massacre of rke 
Mityleneans, and is the instigator of the impossible terms offer ei 
to the Lacedaemonians after the affair of Pylos. ‘He is lauga& 
at in the assembly.’ ‘His success would be a good thing, but r=’ 
death a better,’ iv. 28 fin. ‘His own soldiers disparaged him 7" 
comparison with the Lacedaemonian commander,’ v. 7 init. 

For the motives of Cleon as described by Thucydides c_ 
Aristoph. Knights, 801,— 


NOTES, BOOK Ρ. 293 


AA, οὐχ ἵνα y’ ἄρξῃ, μὰ Al, ᾿Αρκαδίας προνοούμενος, ἀλλ᾽ iva μᾶλλον 16. 1. 
σὺ μὲν ἁρπάζῃς καὶ δωροδοκῇς παρὰ τῶν πόλεων᾽ ὁ δὲ δῆμος 
ὑπὸ τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τῆς ὁμίχλης ἃ πανουργεῖς μὴ καθορᾷ σον. 

Also 864,--- 

ΑΔ. ὅπερ γὰρ οἱ τὰς ἐγχέλεις θηρώμενοι πέπονθας. 
ὅταν μὲν ἡ λίμνη καταστῇ, λαμβάνουσιν οὐδέν" 
ἐὰν δ᾽ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τὸν βόρβορον κυκῶσιν, 
αἱροῦσι. καὶ σὺ λαμβάνεις, ἣν τὴν πόλιν ταράττῃς. 

And for the feelings with which his appointment as general in 
425 was regarded by his opponents cp. Aristophanes speaking 
dy the mouth of the Clouds, 581,— 

εἶτα τὸν θεοῖσιν ἐχθρὸν βυρσοδέψην Παφλαγόνα 
ἡνίχ᾽ ἡρεῖσθε στρατηγόν, τὰς ὀφρῦς συνήγομεν 
κἀποιοῦμεν δεινά βροντὴ δ᾽ ἐρράγη δὲ ἀστραπῆς" 
ἡ σελήνη δ᾽ ἐξέλειπε τὰς ὁδούς" ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος 

τὴν θρναλλίδ᾽ εἰς ἑαυτὸν εὐθέως ξυνελκύσας 

οὐ φανεῖν ἔφασκεν ὑμῖν, εἰ στρατηγήσει Κλέων. 

A comic aspect of the turn of events here described is given in 
Axristophanes, Peace, 267-284, where the servant of the War-god, 
finding that his master, who is intending to pound the cities of 
Hellas, has not got a pestle, goes to borrow one, first at Athens, 
then at Lacedaemon. Both are missing,— 

TIOAEMOS. otros. KY. ri ἐστιν ; ΠΟ. οὐ φέρεις ; KY. τὸ δεῖνα γάρ, 

ἀπόλωλ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίοισιν dderpiBavos, 
ὁ βυρσοπώλης, ὃς ἐκύκα τὴν “Ἑλλάδα. 
ΤΡΥΓΑΙΟΣ. εὖ γ᾽, ὦ πότνια δέσποιν᾽ ᾿Αθηναία, ποιῶν 
ἀπόλωλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος κἀν δέοντι τῇ πόλει... 
ΚΥΔΟΙ͂ΜΟΣ. οἴμοι τάλας, οἴμοι γε κἄτ᾽ οἴμοι μάλα. 
ΠΟ. τί ἐστι; μῶν οὐκ αὖ φέρεις; KY. ἀπόλωλε γὰρ 
καὶ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοισιν ἁλετρίβανος. 
ΠΟ. πῶς, ὦ πανοῦργ᾽ ; KY. ἐς τἀπὶ Θράκης χωρία 


eo e » > 8 > 8 ’ 
Xpnoavres ἑτέροις αὐτὸν εἶτ᾽ ἀπώλεσαν. 


᾿ Νικίας μὲν βουλόμενος, ἐν ᾧ ἀπαθὴς ἦν καὶ ἠξιοῦτο, διασώσασθαι τὴν 16. 1. 
εὐτυχίαν, καὶ ἔς τε τὸ αὐτίκα πόνων πεπαῦσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ τοὺς πολίτας 
παῦσαι, καὶ τῷ μέλλοντι χρόνῳ καταλιπεῖν ὄνομα, ὡς οὐδὲν σφήλας τὴν 


294 THUCYDIDES. 


16.1. We can hardly suppose that Thucydides wrote these words 
without intending silently to recall to the reader's mind the singular 
contrast between the hopes of mortals and their final destinies, or 
without a recollection of the old Greek saying, that ‘no man could 
be called happy before he died.’ He who desires only peace may 
be the author of war; he who aims only at the safety of the state 
may, by the irony of fortune, be the prime mover in its de- 
struction. 

Cp. note on vi. 23. 3, and, for a possible allusion of a similar 
kind, on iv. 25. 6. 


16. 2. εἰ δὲ μή, apyupég εὐλάκᾳ εὐλάξειν. 

I. e. 1) they would reap no harvest, however costly might be the 
implements of their husbandry. Cp. Suet. Aug. 25, ‘minima 
commoda non minimo sectantes discrimine similes aiebat esse 
aureo hamo piscantibus cujus abrupti damnum nulla captura pen— 
sari posset. Or 2) as the Schol. explains, ‘bread would be a= 
dear as if a silver ploughshare had been employed.’ 


16.3. καὶ ἥμισυ τῆς οἰκίας τοῦ ἱεροῦ τότε τοῦ Διὸς οἰκοῦντα φόβῳ Troe 
Λακεδαιμονίων. 
τοῦ ἱεροῦ, the genitive after ἥμισυ τῆς οἰκίας, as though the sentencu==" 
ran τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς οἰκίας τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἦν, ‘ half the house which he occupie=— 
belonged to the temple.’ 


17. 2. καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἔαρ ἤδη TapacKeun τε προεπανεσείσθη ἀπὸ τῶν Λακεδαιμο- 
νίων, . .. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τῶν ξυνόδων ἅμα, πολλὰς δικαιώσεις προενεγκόντων 
ἀλλήλοις, ξυνεχωρεῖτο, ὥστε ἃ ἑκάτεροι πολέμῳ ἔσχον ἀποδόντας τὴν 
εἰρήνην ποιεῖσθαι... τότε δὴ παρακαλέσαντες τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ξυμμάχους οἱ 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι... ποιοῦνται τὴν ξύμβασιν. 

τέ after παρασκευή corresponds to καί before ἐπειδή, The final 
result (τότε δή) was due first of all to the threatening attitude of 
the Lacedaemonians ; secondly, to the circumstance that the com- 
missioners of both parties were just then finding, after many dis- 
putes, a possible basis of agreement. ἅμα thus goes with καὶ ἐπειδή, 
not with πολλάς, ‘many claims at once.’ 


18, The fifty years’ peace is based, not like the treaty which preceded 
it, upon the principle of uff posstdctis, but on that of compensa- 


NOTES, BOOK Κ΄. 295 


lion. As in the preliminary treaty, the right of access to the Delphic 18. 


oracle is maintained for all Hellenes; and a clause is inserted 
guaranteeing to the Delphians their independence. (Cp. i. 112 
fin.) Great concessions are made by Sparta to Athens, chiefly in 
return for the Spartan captives. Her recent acquisitions in Thrace 
are to be surrendered, though clauses are inserted in the treaty 
providing for the independence and the protection of the cities 
thus surrendered, so long as they pay to Athens the tribute origin- 
ally fixed by Aristides, and permitting individuals, if alarmed for 
their own safety, to emigrate. It is not clear from the words of the 
treaty whether these provisions extend to Amphipolis or not. It 
may be remarked, though the difference of wording is perhaps 
accidental, that the word ἀποδιδόναι is applied to Amphipolis, and 
παραδιδόναι to the other cities. They fall into three classes: a) the 
states which had revolted to Lacedaemon, Argilus, Stageirus, etc.— 
these had a claim for protection on the Lacedaemonians; and 4) 
certain other states which appear to have remained faithful to 
Athens, Mecyberna, Sané (iv. 109 fin.), and Singus, had a similar 
claim upon the Athenians. The latter may have been expressly 
mentioned, because they were in some peculiar danger from their 
neighbours. (Cp. v. 39 init., where the Olynthians take Mecyberna.) 
Kohler (Zur Geschichte des Delisch-Attischen Bundes, p. 143) 
argues that Mecyberna and Singus must have revolted from Athens 
at the beginning of the war, from the fact that their names do not 
occur in the tribute lists after 431 B.c. But we cannot venture to 
draw this inference. For Mecyberna certainly, and Sané, which goes 
with Singus, probably (i.e. if it be the town mentioned iv. 109 fin. 
and not Sané in Pallené) continued loyal And it is possible that 
the names may have been omitted for some other reason. c) The 
revolted cities which had been already recovered, such as Mendé 
and Toroné, or were now besieged (Scioné) by the Athenians, are 
left at their mercy. Why Sermylé is included in this class, we do 
not know. It appears to have remained faithful to Athens when 
Potidaea revolted (i. 65 med.) But it may have shown symptoms 
of disaffection at a more recent period. Cp. note on iv. 129. 
For the protection of the Peloponnesian and Chalcidian garrison 
shut up in Scioné (iv. 123 fin.) a special clause is inserted. The 


18. 


18. 5. 


296 THUCYDIDES. 


recent acquisitions of the Athenians are given back to their former 
owners, except of Nisaea, which is allowed to balance Plataea and 
Panactum. There is no provision forbidding the sea to Lacedae- 
monian ships of war such as occurs in the truce. 

The result was far from being favourable to the interests of the 
Athenians. They gave up the Spartan captives, whose detention 
would have secured them against invasion (iv. 41 init.). The 
Lacedaemonians, if they could only recover Pylos and the prisoners, 
were ready to promise anything, and to perform nothing. They 
successfully evaded their engagement to restore Amphipolis (v. 
21. 35), and gave up Panactum only when it had been levelled 
with the ground by the Boeotians (c. 42). 


ὅσας δὲ πόλεις παρέδοσαν Λακεδαιμόνιοι ᾿Αθηναίοις, ἐξέστω ἀπιέναι ὅποι 
ἂν βούλωνται, αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἔχοντας" τὰς δὲ πόλεις φερούσας τὸν 
φόρον τὸν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αριστείδου αὐτονόμους εἶναι. 

παρέδοσαν. The aorist is used as ἃ kind of future perfect, taking 
for granted that the stipulation will be carried into effect. _ 

τὸν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αριστείδον φόρον. According to Thucydides the tribute 
was first fixed at 460 talents (i. 96). But at the beginning of the 
war it had already reached the sum of 600 talents (ii. 13 med.), not 
probably by an increase of the rate imposed upon the allies, but 
from the extension of the tribute to new cities and by the com- 
mutation of ships for money. No general increase appears in 
the tribute lists. ‘They show on the contrary (Kohler, Del.-Att. 
Bund., p. 127, 134 foll.) that the tribute, partially at least, was 
lowered in 450 and 446, and restored to its former amount, or 
in a few cases raised, about 437. 

The Orators (Andoc. De Pace, (iii.) 9, Aesch. De F. L. (ii.) 186, 
Pseudo-Andoc. in Alcib. 11.) affirm the tribute to have been raised 
from 600 to 1200 talents. Andocides and Aeschines say that more 
than 1200 talents came in yearly during the peace of Nicias ; the 
Pseudo-Andocides says that Alcibiades persuaded the Athenians to 
depart from the just assessment of Aristides and to double the amount 
imposed upon each of the allies. (Aristides, the rhetorician of the 
2nd century, a.D., xlvi. 149, and the Scholia on him, also ascribe 
a great increase to Alcibiades, although their authority is not good 


NOTES, BOOK V. 297 


for much). The testimony of Andocides, who was a contemporary, 18. 5. 
is of considerable weight, and the statement is not improbable in 
itself. It is argued by Mr. Grote (part II. ch. xlvii. note, ad init.), 
that Thucydides could not have failed to mention the doubling of 
the tribute if it had really taken place, especially when he speaks 
of the alteration of the tribute into a customs’ duty of five per cent. 
in the last years of the war (vii. 28 fin.). But how dangerous it is 
to argue from the silence of an ancient author is shown by the fact, 
recorded in a recently discovered inscription, that in the year 
425 s.c. the tribute imposed on the islands was doubled (KGhler, 
p- 147 foll., Kirchhoff, C. I. A. no. 37). Only the part of the in- 
scription relating to the islands is preserved with any completeness, 
but the statement of the Orators, the probabilities of the case, and 
the other fragments of the same tribute list (Kohler, p. 205 foll.) 
justify us in supposing that the increase of the tribute extended 
to all the allies. And a part of the same inscription now in 
fragments records the passing of a general measure about the 
tribute in the same year, although its scope cannot be made out 
with certainty. 

As the inscription belongs to the archonship of Stratocles, 
425 s.c., the raising of the tribute is prior to the peace of Nicias 
(421), and to the appearance of Alcibiades as a political leader 
(420), described by Thucydides (v. 43). The inscription therefore 
only partly confirms the statement of the Orators. Plutarch is also 
convicted of inaccuracy (Aristides, xxiv), Περικλέους δ᾽ ἀποθανόντος 
ἐπιτείνοντες of δημαγωγοὶ κατὰ μικρὸν εἰς χιλίων καὶ τριακοσίων ταλάντων 
κεφάλαιον ἀνήγαγον. 

The tribute lists were of two kinds. In one there is affixed to 
the name of each town a very small sum, which is probably the 
one-sixtieth portion of the tribute, dedicated as an offering to 
Athené (the words τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τῇ θεῷ μνᾶν ἀπὸ τοῦ ταλάν του] are 
found upon one of these lists (Kéhler, p. 78). Of the second 
class a single inscription remains, that of 425. In this the sums 
are larger, and the inscription appears to give the rate at which 
each city was assessed (φόρος ἐτάχθη occurs on this, Kohler, p. 71, 
cp. p. 103 foll.) 

The date of the several inscriptions was for a long time uncertain. 


18.5 


18. 9. 


20. 1. 


298 THUCYDIDES. 


Most of them are headed by words like the following, [éw]i τῆς 
τρί[της ἀρχῆς], ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς rera| pr|ns, ἐπὶ τῆς τρίτης καὶ δεκάτη[:] 
ἀρχῆς. But it was not known in what year the series of ἀρχαί com- 
menced, until an inscription (first published in 1865, Kohler, 
p. 78, Kirchhoff, C. I. A. no. 260) was found which contains the 
words ἦρχε δὲ ᾿Αθηναίοις ᾿Αριστίων, and ἐπὶ τῆς τετάρτης καὶ τριακοστῆς 
ἀρχῆς]. Aristion was archon in 421, and therefore the series begins 
with the year 454, Ol. 81. 3. 


ὁμνύντων δὲ τὸν ἐπιχώριον ὅρκον ἑκάτεροι τὸν μέγιστον ἐξ ἑκάστης 
πόλεως. 

ἐξ has been needlessly altered by Ullrich and Classen into ἑπτα- 
xaidexa (ι() because this is the number of the subscribers to the 
treaty. ἐξ ἑκάστης πόλεως, each of the cities on either side swearing 
in the form of their own most binding oaths. Either ἐξ may be 
taken with τὸν μέγιστον, equivalent to ἐν, or τινές may be supplied. 

αὗται ai σπονδαὶ ἐγένοντο τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἅμα ἦρι, ἐκ Acow- 
σίων εὐθὺς τῶν ἀστικῶν, αὐτόδεκα ἐτῶν διελθόντων καὶ ἡμερῶν ὀλίγων 
παρενεγκουσῶν, ἣ ws τὸ πρῶτον ἡ ἐσβολὴ ἡ ἐς τὴν ᾿Αττικὴν καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ 
πολέμου τοῦδε ἐγένετο. 

The date of the treaty (cp. c. 19 init.) was Elaphebolion 25, i.e. 
about the end of March or the beginning of April. παρενεγκουσῶν, 
either 1)}ΞΞ διενεγκουσῶν, ‘ with a difference of a few days ;’ or 2) 
taking παρά in the sense of ‘beyond, ‘with an excess of a few 
days.’ The latter explanation accords better a) with the precise 
words of the Greck, αὐτοδέκα ἐτῶν διελθόντων καὶ ἡμερῶν ὀλίγων mape- 
νεγκουσῶν, 6) with the natural meaning of παρά in composition, c) 
with the use of the word in v. 26 med. εὑρήσει τις τοσαῦτα ἔτη λογιζό- 
μένος κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους καὶ ἡμέρας ov πολλὰς παρενεγκούσας, where 
Thucydides is speaking of the duration of the whole war. For 
he probably reckons the beginning of the war from the attack 
on Plataea, (i.e. ‘the beginning of spring,’ Elaphebolion, March— 
April, 431, cp. ii. 2 init.), and if, as Plutarch (Lys. xv) informs 
us, the ships and Long Walls were surrendered on the 16th of 
Munychion (April—May), 404, it is clear that the ‘few days’ did 
not fall short of, but somewhat exceeded, the twenty-seven years. 


NOTES, BOOK V. 249 
It might indeed be argued from the present passage that the 20. 1. 
commencement of the war is reckoned not from the attack on 
Plataea, but from the first invasion of Attica. But the difference is 
then too great to be described by ἡμερῶν ὀλίγων. For the invasion 
did not take place until eighty days after the attack on Plataea. 


σκοπείτω δέ τις κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους, Kal μὴ τῶν ἑκασταχοῦ ἣ ἀρχόντων ZO. 2. 
ἢ ἀπὸ τιμῆς τινὸς τὴν ἀπαρίθμησιν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐς τὰ προγεγενημένα 
σημαινόντων πιστεύσας μᾶλλον. οὐ γὰρ ἀκριβές ἐστιν, οἷς καὶ ἀρχο- 
ῥκένοις καὶ μεσοῦσι, καὶ ὅπως ἔτυχέ τῳ, ἐπεγένετό τι. κατὰ θέρη δὲ καὶ 
χειμῶνας ἀριθμῶν, ὥσπερ γέγραπται, εὑρήσει, ἐξ ἡμισείας ἑκατέρου τοῦ 

€ navrov τὴν δύναμιν ἔχοντος, δέκα μὲν θέρη, ἴσους δὲ χειμῶνας τῷ πρώτῳ 
“ψεολέμῳ τῷδε γεγενημένους. 

τὴν ἀπαρίθμησιν 1) may be governed by κατά, but the preposition is 
tthen too far from its case; 2) better with σκοπείτω, the construction 
‘being varied, σκοπείτω κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους, σκοπείτω τὴν ἀπαρίθμησιν. The 
Sentence would have run more regularly καὶ μὴ σκοπείτω τὴν ἀπαρί- 
θμησιν τῶν ὀνομάτων τῶν ἑκασταχοῦ ἢ ἀρχόντων ἣ ἀπὸ τιμῆς τινὸς σημαι- 
νόντων ἐς τὰ προγεγενημένα. τῶν ἀρχόντων ἣ ἀπὸ τιμῆς τινὸς σημαινόντων, 
is the genitive after ὀνομάτων. σημαινόντων (unnecessarily placed by 
Poppo after προγεγενημένα) is to be construed both with ἀρχόντων and 
with ἀπὸ τιμῆς τινός : ἣ ἀρχόντων:Ξεἣ ἀρχόντων σημαινόντων. ἑκασταχοῦ 
qualifies σημαινόντων not ἀρχόντων ἣ ἀπὸ τιμῆς τινός. The prominent 
place οἵ ἀρχόντων in the sentence brings out the contrast between 
the two ways of reckoning, by χρόνοι and ‘by ἄρχοντες. 

ὥσπερ γέγραπται, ‘according to the plan which I have adopted.’ 
ἑκατέρου, scil. τοῦ re θέρους καὶ τοῦ χειμῶνος, lit. 1) ‘each of the two 
having in half measure the value of a year,’ i.e. having the value 
ofa half year; or 2) taking τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ with ἐξ ἡμισείας, each re- 
ceiving its value for the half of the year. 

This passage proves that the summers and winters of Thucydides 
are each of them periods of six months. Nor could we possibly 
suppose that Thucydides would divide the year into unequal periods 
without further explanation. It is true that the winter months 
during which navigation was closed are reckoned as four in the 
speech of Nicias, vi. 21 fin. ἐξ ἧς μηνῶν οὐδὲ τεσσάρων τῶν χειμερινῶν 
ἄγγελον ῥάδιον ἐλθεῖν. But there Thucydides is speaking of the natural 


40. 2. 


2l. 3. 


23. 1. 


23. 2. 


300 . THUCYDIDES. 


division of the year, here of a conventional division, adopted for 
purposes of chronology. If his winter were of four months’ dura- 
tion only, he would have had to reckon the summer as com- 
mencing not later than the first of March, unless he ended it 
later than the first of November. 


αὐτὸς μέν, πάλιν πεμπόντων τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ κελευόντων μάλιστα 
μὲν καὶ τὸ χωρίον παραδοῦναι, εἰ δὲ μή, ὁπόσοι Πελοποννησίων ἕνεισιν 
ἐξαγαγεῖν, κατὰ τάχος ἐπορεύετο. οἱ δὲ ξύμμαχοι ἐν τῇ Λακεδαίμονι αὐτοὶ 
ἔτυχον ὄντες κιτ.λ. 

1) The exact force of αὐτός may be traced as follows, ‘ he came 
to plead the cause of others, but he was himself sent back;’ or 
more precisely, ‘he came to propose that the Chalcidian cities 
should not be surrendered, but he was himself sent back to execute 
the surrender.’ 

Or 2) αὐτὸς μέν may be emphatically opposed to of δὲ ξύμμαχοι. 
‘He was himself sent back, but the allies who were present at 
Lacedaemon carried on the opposition to the treaty.’ 


αὐτοὶ δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ξυμμαχίαν ἐποιοῦντο, νομίζοντες ἥκιστα 
ἂν σφίσι τούς τε ᾿Αργείους, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἤθελον ᾿Αμπελίδου καὶ Λίχου 
ἔλθόντων ἐπισπένδεσθαι, νομίσαντες αὐτοὺς ἄνευ ᾿Αθηναίων οὐ δεινοὺς 
εἶναι, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Πελοπόννησον μάλιστ᾽ ἂν ἡσυχάζειν᾽ πρὸς γὰρ ay τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους, εἰ ἐξῆν, χωρεῖν. 

νομίσαντες αὐτοὺς ... εἶναι, These words are a resumption of the 
previous clause, νομίζοντες ἥκιστα ἂν σφίσι τούς τε ᾿Αργείους, νομίζοντες 
(pres.) representing the state of mind in which the Lacedaemonians 
acted, νομίσαντες (aor.) the conclusion which led to this state of 
mind. 

πρὸς yap dv... χωρεῖν. Either 1) after ξυμμαχίαν ἐποιοῦντο. ‘The 
Lacedaemonians made an alliance with Athens, for they knew 
that the other states of Peloponnesus would if they could have 
gone over to the Athenians.’ 

Or 2)* γάρ may be explained by a suppressed clause inferred 
from ἡσυχάζειν ἄν, ‘the states of Peloponnesus would not have kept 
quiet otherwise, for if it had been in their power (which it would 
no longer be when the treaty was made,) they would have been 
going over to the Athenians.’ 


NOTES, BOOK V. 301 


The new agreement was a defensive alliance made between the 23. 
Athenians and Lacedaemonians, and was confined to one or two 
points. The clause which is repeated here from the previous 
treaty, empowering the two contracting parties, of themselves and 
without the consent of their allies, to add to or take away from 
either treaty, naturally created a panic among the Peloponnesians 
(v. 29), whose independence was threatened by it. The allies or 
tributaries of Athens were not in a position to make a similar 
complaint, for most of them had suffered already what the Lace- 
Claemonian allies dreaded, nor had those of them who were 
independent anything to fear from Lacedaemon. The provision 
Wespecting the revolt of the slaves applies to Lacedaemon only. 
“This indicates that the Athenians were in no such danger from 
their slaves as the Lacedaemonians were from the Helots. The 
older treaty remained in force, and, in accordance with its pro- 
visions, the prisoners from Sphacteria were now restored. 


καὶ τὸ θέρος ἦρχε τοῦ ἑνδεκάτου ἔτους. ταῦτά δὲ τὰ δέκα ἔτη ὁ πόλεμος 24. 2. 
ξυνεχῶς γενόμενος γέγραπται. 

ταῦτα δὲ τὰ δέκα ἔτη. The antecedent is implied in τοῦ ἐνδε- 
κάτον ἔτους. The words are the accusative of duration after γενό- 


μενος. 


οἱ δὲ Κορίνθιοι καὶ τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πόλεών τινες διεκίνουν τὰ πεπραγ- 26. 1. 
μένα, καὶ εὐθὺς ἄλλη ταραχὴ καθίστατο τῶν ξυμμάχων πρὸς τὴν Λακε- 
δαίμονα. 

ἄλλη refers to what has gone before. Either 1) a new disturb- 
ance of the peace at once arose in addition to the previous efforts 
of the Corinthians to set aside the treaty, or 2)* a disturbance at 
once arose in consequence of the efforts of the Corinthians to set 
aside the treaty. ἄλλη is then used pleonastically, (cp. Soph. 
Ajax, 516,— 

καὶ μητέρ᾽ ἄλλη μοῖρα τὸν φύσαντά re 
καθεῖλεν, Αιδον θανασίμους οἰκητόρας") 
and merely implies a change in the situation. 

According to 1) διεκίνουν ra πεπραγμένα refers to the previous 
attitude of the Corinthians, ταραχή to the events recorded in c. 27. 


25. I. 


25. 3. 


26, 2. 


302 THUCYDIDES. 


But there is not enough in the narrative of Thucydides to justify 
this distinction. The whole sentence must refer to the intrigue of 
the Corinthians with the Argives, distinguishing only the temper in 
which they began from the overt acts in which they ended. 


καὶ ἐπὶ ἐξ ἔτη μὲν καὶ δέκα μῆνας ἀπέσχοντο μὴ ἐπὶ τὴν ἑκατέρων γὴν 
στρατεῦσαι, ἔξωθεν δὲ μετ᾽ ἀνακωχῆς οὐ βεβαίον ἔβλαπτον ἀλλήλους τὰ 
μάλιστα' ἔπειτα μέντοι καὶ ἀναγκασθέντες λῦσαι τὰς μετὰ τὰ δέκα ἔτη 
σπονδὰς αὖθις ἐς πόλεμον φανερὸν κατέστησαν. 

The first war began in the spring of 431, and the peace ten 
years afterwards in 421, at the same time of the year within a few 
days. The peace of 421 continued six years and ten months, and 
was terminated by the resolution of the Lacedaemonians to renew 
the war, after the appearance of the Syracusans and Alcibiades at 
Sparta, vi. 93. This resolution was formed during the winter, 
some time after the first campaign in Sicily was over, i.e. early in 
the year 414, and at this point Thucydides fixes the limits of the 
peace, not at the actual descent of the Athenians upon the Pelo- 
ponnesus in the following summer, vi. 105. Cp. note on i. 57. 6. 
§ 5. As the six years and ten months are continuous with the 
ten years of the first war, it is clear that they are reckoned from 
the peace, not from the alliance. Thucydides seems however at 
the beginning of the chapter to regard the two as practically con- 
temporaneous: μετὰ δὲ τὰς σπονδὰς καὶ Thy ξυμμαχίαν τῶν Aaxe- 


᾿ LY a“ 3 , aA %* *@ ΠῚ 4 ~ , 
δαιμονίων καὶ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, at ἐγένοντο pera τὸν δεκαετῆ πόλεμον x.7.A. 


καὶ τὴν διὰ μέσου ξύμβασιν εἴ τις μὴ ἀξιώσει πόλεμον νομίζειν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς 
δικαιώσει. τοῖς τε γὰρ ἔργοις ὡς διήρηται ἀθρείτω, καὶ εὑρήσει οὐκ εἰκὸς 
ὃν εἰρήνην αὐτὴν κριθῆναι, ἐν 9 οὔτε ἀπέδοσαν πάντα οὔτ᾽ ἀπεδέξαντο, ἃ 
ξυνέθεντο, ἔξω τε τούτων πρὸς τὸν Μαντινικὸν καὶ ᾿Επιδαύριον πόλεμον 
καὶ ἐς ἄλλα ἀμφοτέροις ἁμαρτήματα ἐγένοντο, καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ Θράκης ξύμμαχοι 
οὐδὲν ἧσσον πολέμιοι ἦσαν, Βοιωτοί τε ἐκεχειρίαν δεχήμερον ἦγον. 

διήρηται, 501}. ἡ διὰ μέσου ξύμβασις. διαιρεῖν here takes the mean- 
ing of ‘defining,’ from the notion either of dividing or analysing 
a thing in itself, or of separating it from other things. 

τοῖς Te γὰρ ἔργοις x.t.A. 1) The particle which should have an- 
swered to τέ is lost in the sentence, which takes a different turn, 


NOTES, BOOK V. 303 
the irregularity being concealed by a connection of sound with 26. 2. 
καὶ εὑρήσει. Or τέ may have the meaning ‘too, ‘let him consider 
it too with reference to facts, and not merely with reference to 
hames such as peace and war.’ See note on i. 9. 3. § 3. 

This is better than 2) taking τοῖς re yap ἔργοις with ἔξω re τούτων, 
‘let him consider what the facts of the case were, etc.:’ ‘besides 
this there was a Mantinean and Epidaurian war, and the Chal- 
cidians and Boeotians did not recognise the peace.’ For all this 
is a part of the ‘ facts of the case.’ 
ἐκεχειρίαν δεχήμερον, a truce for ten days, or more precisely a truce 
which could not expire until ten days’ notice had been given. 


καὶ ξυνέβη μοι φεύγειν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ἔτη εἴκοσι pera τὴν és ᾿Αμφίπολιν 26. 5. 
«» -“ρατηγίαν, καὶ γενομένῳ παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς πράγμασι, καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον 
π' κοῖς Πελοποννησίων διὰ τὴν φυγήν, καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν τι αὐτῶν μᾶλλον αἷἴ- 
= cba, 

It is remarkable that Thucydides speaks of his exile only as 
=. ffording him a means of obtaining information from both sides ; 
Ἔχ ΤῺ any other point of view it was in his eyes a matter hardly 
“<oncerning either himself or his readers. Hence he introduces 
the circumstance of his banishment out of its historical place. 
Hie does not expressly say, though there is no reason to doubt, 
that he was banished for his failure to relieve Amphipolis, perhaps 
because he did not choose to discuss a matter in which he was 
Wersonally interested. For his grand ‘impartiality extends to him- 
Self as well as to others. 

The actual statement respecting the cause of his banishment 
ests only on the evidence of the two Lives of Thucydides usually 
prefixed to his history. One of them is anonymous; the other, 
called by the name of Marcellinus, is a work of unknown date 
and authority, and probably made up of different writings. Mar- 
cellinus also furnishes the sole evidence for the statement that the 
influence of Cleon led to the condemnation of Thucydides, § 46, 
ἐφυγαδεύθη ὑπο ᾿Αθηναίων, διαβάλλοντος τοῦ Κλέωνος. This latter as- 

_Sertion, though probable, is not much confirmed by so late an 
authority ; nor is such a motive needed to account in a man like 
Thucydides for a severe judgment on Cleon. 


26. 5. 


204 THUCYDIDES. 


Was the loss of Amphipolis due to the negligence of Thucy- 
dides? Bishop Thirlwall thinks that he did all that was possible 
under the circumstances. Mr. Grote is of opinion that he should 
himself have ‘changed the circumstances,’ The activity of Bra- 
sidas, the capitulation of Acanthus, and the fall of Toroné, must 
have been known to him, and he ought not to have been ignorant 
of the necessity for defending the bridge over the Strymon leading 
to Amphipolis. At this critical moment he should not have been 
at Thasos, which, being an island, was in no danger from Brasidas. 
Mr. Grote concludes by remarking, what none will be disposed to 
deny, that posterity has greatly benefited by his banishment or 
voluntary exile. 

We may observe a) that Thucydides certainly showed no want 
of energy or ability in relieving Eion when the situation of affairs 
was made known to him. This is a presumption that he was not 
guilty of any gross carelessness with regard to Amphipolis. δ) 
But whether he knew, or ought to have known, of the recent pro- 
ceedings of Brasidas and the danger of Amphipolis, turns on the 
question how long he had been at Thasos, or in the region of 
Chalcidice. He may have sailed straight from Athens to Thasos, 
and have just arrived there at the very time when the news from 
Amphipolis reached him. He may have gone from Amphipolis to 
Thasos for some necessary purpose, as for example to raise troops 
against Brasidas, cp. iv. 105 med. μὴ ἀφικνουμένον αὐτοῦ (τοῦ Θουκυ- 
δίδους) τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾿Αμφιπολιτῶν, ἐλπίσαν ἐκ θαλάσσης ξυμμαχικὸν 
καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Θράκης ἀγείραντα αὐτὸν περιποιήσειν σφᾶς οὐκέτι προσχωροῖ: 
or to put down disaffection. Or we may suppose him to have 
been lingering with the Athenian fleet in the neighbourhood of his 
own home and property. But for none of these suppositions can 
a particle of evidence be adduced. c) And it must be remembered 
that Eucles and not Thucydides was in charge of Amphipolis at 
the time. 

Bishop Thirlwall naturally desires to acquit the great historian. 
Mr. Grote in condemning him shows what may be called the 
bias of impartiality, or perhaps a too great tenderness to the faults 
of the Athenian people. But unless we knew how long he had been 
at Thasos and why he went there—and neither Thucydides himself 


NOTES, BOOK V. 305 


Nor any other writer gives the necessary information on either of 26. 5. 
these points—we can neither acquit nor condemn him. 

If it be argued that his silence is suspicious, it must be remem- 
bered that he had the facts at his disposal, and could have given to 
posterity any version of them that he pleased. 


ἀποδεῖξαι δὲ ἄνδρας ὀλίγους ἀρχὴν αὐτοκράτορας. 47. 2. 
Either 1)* ‘having full powers in their office;’ cp. for the acc. 
ἀρχήν, note on v. 9. 9: Or 2) ἀρχήν may be taken in the sense 
Of ‘from the first.’ 


οἵ re ᾿Αργεῖοι ἄριστα ἔσχον τοῖς πᾶσιν οὗ ξυναράμενοι τοῦ ᾿Αττικοῦ 38. 2. 
ὩΣ «υλέμου, ἀμφοτέροις δὲ μᾶλλον ἔνσπονδοι ὄντες ἐκκαρπωσάμενοι. 

ἐκκαρπωσάμενοι, 1)* ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων, Or 2) ἐκ τῆς εἰρήνης understood in 
<2 gidorépos ἔνσπονδοι ὄντες. Cp. the satirical reference to the Argives 
Ἂχ Aristoph. Peace, 476 (acted in 421 B.c.)— 

κατεγέλων τῶν ταλαιπωρουμένων 
καὶ ταῦτα διχόθεν μισθοφοροῦντες ἄλφιτα. 
~&% nd cp. ii. 67 init., iv. 42 med. 


ὥστε ἄσμενοι πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αργείους ἐτράποντο πόλιν τε μεγάλην νομίζοντες 29. 1, 
™~ ., νομίσαντες πλέον τι εἰδότας μεταστῆναι αὐτούς. 2. 

The present expresses the constant feeling; the aorist the 
Keeling or opinion at a particular moment: cp. note on c. 22. 2. 


οἱ δὲ ᾿Ηλεῖοι... τὴν ξυνθήκην προφέροντες, ἐν 7) εἴρητο, ἃ ἔχοντες ἐς τὸν 81. 5. 
“Arrixdy πόλεμον καθίσταντό τινες, ταῦτα ἔχοντας καὶ ἐξελθεῖν κιτιλ. 
This agreement is nowhere else mentioned. We can only infer 
that it was made, probably at the commencement of the Pelopon- 
nesian war, between the members of the Peloponnesian alliance. 


ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ of Κορίνθιοι εὐθὺς per ἐκείνους, καὶ of ἐπὶ Θράκης Χαλκιδῆς, 81. 6. 
᾿Αργείων ξύμμαχοι. Βοιωτοὶ δὲ καὶ Μεγαρῆς τὸ αὐτὸ λέγοντες ἡσύχαζον, 
περιορώμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, καὶ νομίζοντες σφίσι τὴν ᾿Αργείων 
δημοκρατίαν αὐτοῖς ὀλιγαρχουμένοις ἧσσον ξύμφορον εἶναι τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων 
πολιτείας. 

The word περιορᾶσθαι has two principal meanings, 1)* ‘to look 
Carefully at,’ and 2) ‘to overlook,’ and we have to’ determine by the 

VOL. If. Χ 


406 THUCYDIDES. 


81. 6. context which of these is more suitable to this passage. Now it is 
very natural 1)* that the Lacedaemonians should watch carefully 
the proceedings of the Boeotians and Megarians, but very unlikely 
2) that they would neglect or overlook them. περιορᾶσθαε, like 
ὁρᾶσθαι, may be passive as well as middle. The meaning of 
‘watching carefully,’ which is common in the middle voice, is here 
transferred to the passive. Another meaning 3) which has been 
given to περιορώμενοι, ‘ being left to themselves’ (Grote), is incon- 
sistent with the usage of the word, for περιορᾶσθαι in the passive 
is not used absolutely in the sense of ‘let alone,’ though περιορᾶν - 
in the active and in connection with other words=‘to overlook,’ ~ 
or ‘not to notice’ an act, i.e. ‘to permit’ it. A more satisfactory ~ 
rendering 4) would be obtained by taking περιορώμενοι in an active = 
sense, ‘ watching the turn of affairs,’ if we were justified in omitting = 
ὑπὸ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων (Dobree and Classen). But there is no trace = 
of any variation in the MSS., and we have no right to improve the - 
text without regard to their authority. 

ἡσύχαζον, i.e. ‘did nothing,’ ‘remained as they were,’ refusing to 
come into the treaty with the Athenians, but forming no closer 
connection with the Peloponnesian malcontents. 


32.1. περὶ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους τοῦ θέρους τούτον Σκιωναίους μὲν ᾿Αθηναῖοι 
ἐκπολιορκήσαντες ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς ἡβῶντας, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας 
ἠνδραπόδισαν. 

It hence appears that the removal of the women and children 
spoken of in iv. 123 fin. was not complete. 


92. 1, ἐνθυμούμενοι τάς te ἐν ταῖς μάχαις ξυμφορὰς Kat τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς θεοῦ 
χρήσαντος. 
There is a slight irregularity in this sentence owing to the mis- 
placement of τέ, which should have followed ἐνθυμούμενοι, τέ then 
answering to καί in the succeeding clause. 


32. 5. tas δεχημέρους ἐπισπονδάς. 
The preposition ém-, 1) may refer to the ever-renewable character 
of the ten days’ ‘truce upon truce’ between the Athenians and 
Boeotians, (cp. note on 26. 2); or 2) may imply that it was made 


NOTES, BOOK V. 307 


as a supplement to the first treaty between the Athenians and 32. 5. 
Lacedaemonians. Cp. v. 22 med. τοὺς ᾿Αργείους ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἤθελον 


0 « ἐπισπένδεσθαι. 


sai ὕστερον οὐ πολλῷ αὐτοὺς μετὰ τῶν Νεοδαμωδῶν ἐς Λέπρεον κατέστη- 84. I. 
σῶσε». κείμενον ἐπὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς κοὶ τῆς Ἡλείας, ὄντες ἤδη διάφοροι 
FAW clots. 

~The νεοδαμώδεις appear to have been an enfranchised class at 

SE =m, of whom from this time forward (Arnold) mention fre- 

“ASM ently occurs. They are distinguished here from the newly- 

“πὰ Franchised Helots, but further than this nothing is certainly 
“mewn about them, although much has been conjectured. 


τοῦ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θέρους καὶ Θύσσον τὴν ἐν τῇ Ἄθῳ Δικτιδιῆς εἷλον, ᾿Αθηναίων 88. 1. 
Ow en ξύμμαχον. 
The Dictidians are nowhere else mentioned, but it is unneces- 
Sanur to alter the reading to Acjs with some commentators, or to 
«ἰκιδῆς, as Poppo suggests. The Dians were still allies of 
A” thens, c. 82 init. 


ἔτυχον yap ἔφοροι ἕτεροι καὶ οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ὧν ai σπονδαὶ ἐγένοντο ἄρχοντες 36. 1, 
Ψ  δη, καί τινες αὐτῶν καὶ ἐναντίοι σπονδαῖς. 
For the absence of the article see note on i. 53. 2. 


καὶ πειρᾶσθαι Βοιωτούς, ᾿Αργείων γενομένους πρῶτον αὐτοὺς ξυμμάχους, 36. I. 
αὖθις μετὰ Βοιωτῶν ᾿Αργείους Λακεδαιμονίοις ποιῆσαι ξυμμάχους. 

- There is a certain formality and precision in the repetition of 
Βοιωτῶν where we should expect ἑαυτῶν, such as occurs in the treaty, 
v. 18. 5, ἣν δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι πείθωσι τὰς πόλεις, βουλομένας ταύτας ἐξέστω 


ξυμμάχους ποιεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ᾿Αθηναίοις. 


ἑλέσθαι γὰρ Λακεδαιμονίους πρὸ τῆς ᾿Αθηναίων ἔχθρας καὶ διαλύσεως 86. I. 
τῶν σπονδῶν ᾿Αργείους σφίσι φίλους καὶ ξυμμάχους γενέσθαι. 

There is here a confusion between two ideas: ‘The Lacedae- 
monians cared more for the Argive alliance than they cared for,’ or 
‘feared, the enmity of Athens, and the dissolution of the treaty :’ 
and, ‘They preferred the Argive alliance to the friendship of 
Athens and the maintenance of the treaty.’ Cp. for the same 

X 2 


408 THUCYDIDES. 


86. x. sentiment in a generalized form i. 36 init. γνώτω τὸ μὲν δεδιὸς αὐτοῦ, ᾿ς 
ἰσχὺν ἔχον, τοὺς ἐναντίους μᾶλλον φοβῆσον, τὸ δὲ θαρσοῦν μὴ δεξαμένον « 
ἀσθενὲς ὃν πρὸς ἰσχύοντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀδεέστερον ἐσόμενον. Classen 
takes πρό in the sense of ‘ before.’ ‘They would have liked to havess 
the Argives for their friends before they declared war against thes» 
Athenians.’ But this explanation seems to force the meaning ote 


ἕλέσθαι. 


36.1. τὸ γὰρ Ἄργος ἀεὶ ἠπίσταντο ἐπιθυμοῦντας τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους καλῶ πἷζ 
σφίσι φίλιον γενέσθαι, ἡγούμενοι τὸν ἔξω Πελοποννήσου πόλεμον ῥᾷω dam 
εἶναι. τὸ μέντοι Πάνακτον ἐδέοντο Βοιωτοὺς ὅπως παραδώσουσι Aaxedanm. 
μονίοις κιτιλ. 

καλῶς, not ‘on a favourable opportunity’ (Stahl and Classen” « 
but ‘ on satisfactory terms.’ 

ἡγούμενοι, the reading of all the MSS., must be corrected int—# 
ἡγουμένους. The word was apparently mistaken for the nominativ<= 

to ἠπίσταντο. | ° 

The accusative, Βοιωτούς, is unusual after ἐδέοντο. ἐδέοντο Botwrot—= 

ὅπως ΞΞ:- ἐδέοντο ὅπως Βοιωτοί. Cp. note on iil 51. 2. 


38. 3. οὐ γὰρ εἶπον αὐτοῖς of βοιωτάρχαι τὰ ἐκ τῆς Λακεδαίμονος, ὅτι τῶν τον 
ἐφόρων Κλεόβουλος καὶ Ξενάρης καὶ οἱ φίλοι παραινοῦσιν ᾿Αργείων πρῶτον 
καὶ Κορινθίων γενομένους ξυμμάχους ὕστερον μετὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων 
γίγνεσθαι. 

Lit. ‘afterwards to become their allies in company with the 
Lacedaemonians,’ i.e. the Boeotians after first forming an alliance 
with the Argives and Corinthians, were afterwards to form δὴ 
alliance with the Lacedaemonians as well, in which the Argives 
and Corinthians would be included. 


39.2. ἐγίγνοντο yap det λόγοι τοῖς τε ᾿Αθηναίοις καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις περὶ ὧν 
φ > ’ 
εἶχον ἀλλήλων. 
τέ, i.e. both Athenians and Lacedaemonians, sometimes one 
and sometimes the other, introducing fresh points of difference. 


39. 3. Λλλακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ εἰδότες μέν, ὅτι ἀδικήσουσιν ᾿Αθηναίους, εἰρημένον ἄνευ 
ἀλλήλων μήτε σπένδεσθαί τῳ μήτε πολεμεῖν, βουλόμενοι δὲ τὸ Πάνακτον 


παραλαβεῖν ὡς τὴν Πύλον ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ κομιούμενοι κιτὰλ. 


NOTES, BOOK V. 309 


"XX his provision is not found either in the treaty or in the alliance, 39. 3. 
but it may be understood, as Bishop Thirlwall remarks, in the last 
Ciavuase of the latter (v. 23. 6), or in the provision that neither party 
Should conclude a war without the consent of the other (v. 23. 
Ms =). Or it may have formed part of a separate agreement, which 
“En uxacydides has not given. 

Et may be asked how the Lacedaemonians could expect to 
©btain Pylos in return for Panactum at a time when they were 
fla =_antly violating the treaty by a separate alliance with Boeotia. 

© answer is that they expected the alliance to remain a secret 
WEA tl they had gained the advantage. Cp. c. 42 fin. λεγομένων δὲ 
Fa e-wey οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι δεινὰ ἐποίουν, νομίζοντες ἀδικεῖσθαι ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων 
“Pes τε Πανάκτου τῇ καθαιρέσει, ὃ ἔδει ὀρθὸν παραδοῦναι, καὶ πυνθανόμενοι 
ὅπ μὲ Βοιωτοῖς ἰδίᾳ ξυμμαχίαν πεποίηνται. Yet the alliance was 
XA<> secret to the Argives, c. 40 init. 


«αἱ τὸ Πάνακτον εὐθὺς καθῃρεῖτο. 39. 3. 
ὡς... τὸ Πάνακτον ἥσθοντο καθαιρούμενον. 40. 1. 


Cp. τὸ μὲν Πάνακτον ... καθῃρημένον εὗρον, c. 42 init., when the 
Ἂν ork was completed. 


ὅπῃ ἂν ξυγχωρῇ. 40. 3. 
‘In any way in which it could be agreed upon.’ The imper- 
Sonal sense, though not found elsewhere in any undisputed passage, 
is justified by the analogy of ἐγχωρεῖν. 


ἔπειτα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐώντων Λακεδαιμονίων μεμνῆσθαι περὶ αὐτῆς, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ βούλονται 41. 2. 
σπένδεσθαι ὥσπερ πρότερον, ἕτοιμοι εἶναι «.7.A. 


¢ ~ 


ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι is dependent on some words such as ἐπειδὴ ἔλεγον, 
implied in οὐκ ἐώντων. 


νομίζοντες καὶ τοῦτο ἀποδιδόναι. See note on English text. 42. 1. 


οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι δεινὰ ἐποίουν, νομίζοντες ἀδικεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Λακεδαι- 42. 2. 
μονίων. 

‘They made a great noise’ or ‘fuss’ about it; cp. Herod. iii. 
14. 6, τῶν ἄλλων Αἰγυπτίων τῶν περικατημένων αὐτὸν κλαιόντων καὶ 
ϑεινὰ ποιεύγτων. Thucydides nowhere else uses the expression, 


-“Ὃ . 


° “- [2 oa 
aleria ὁ Νικίας, καίπερ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων αὐτῶν 


-͵ν-“Ὁ 


36. I. sre _ στρ 60 fin.) δεινὸν ποιεῖσθαι," <> 
σι: 
aa" 
ta: og a μὲν ἔτι Tore ὧν νέος ὡς ἐν GL. DN FF 
tl 
Δ _= >c2ncertain. But the statement <f 
7 2: he was about forty years old ae 
= πο rgjected. According to Plutarch, 
38. 1. . ruzs. De Bigis, (xvi) 50, he perishummm. «2d 
- στ ἰῇ 404; and Xenophon tells us 
zed the Athenians of their danger Ec 
.- 2 τῇ the preceding year. So that το ad 
> s#ros been correct he would have be= ὁ 
=.s ume, p.c. 420. There would be 
τ 3ze thus ascribed to him, if it vom" 
~.. ment in the Symposium of Plato, 219 Ε, 
τς campaign of Potidaea (432-129) at 
an. When, if he was only twenty-four ω 
πος tare been too young for military service. 
at 
_.. sur γτεισάμενοι ἐξέλωσι. 
.. «8 or ‘destroy,’ 2) ‘get rid of,’ ‘put out 49 at 
«-ἀὐοὐγίων πρέσβεις... Φιλοχαρίδας καὶ Λέων καὶ 
᾿ " _-¢ Lacedaemonians in general, who are 
.-- semonian ambassadors, cp. v. ΟἹ med. καὶ 
. teniains) ἐκ τῶν λόγων τοὺς ξυμμάχους, et bis 
᾿ _use te Δρκαδικὸν πάντες πλὴν ᾿Αργείων. 
μας TUVEL, πίστιν αὐτοῖς δούς, ἣν μὴ ὁμολογήσωσιν ἐν 
μεν ὑπηοῦν Πύλον τε αὐτοῖς ἀποδώσειν (πείσειν γὰρ αὐτὸς 
᾿ ΗΝ un ap ἀντιλέγειν), καὶ τἄλλα ξυναλλάξειν. oe 
ον κώπας ἀντιλέγειν, are dependent on ἔφη, implied in ¥ 
ι 


NOTES, BOOK V. 311 


ἠπατημένων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξηπατημένος περὶ τοῦ μὴ αὐτοκράτορας ὁμολογῆσαι 46. 1. 
ἥκειν͵ ὅμως τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις ἔφη χρῆναι φίλους μᾶλλον γίγνεσθαι κιτιλ. 
The clause τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων αὐτῶν ἡπατημένων is subordinate to 
καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξηπατημένος. καί emphasizes αὐτός. The force of αὐτῶν 
2nd κεὐτός is slightly different. When the Lacedaemonians, who had 
the Nearest interest in the matter, and were least likely to be de- 
“Clved, themselves fell into the snare, Nicias too (καὶ αὐτός) was 
Ce ived even more completely than they were (ἐξηπατημένος, cp. 
1. 63 med., where προδοῦναι is repeated in the more emphatic form 
κατ προδοῦναι). Alcibiades told a direct falsehood to the Lacedae- 
©nians, and through them deceived Nicias. 


εἰπεῖν τε ἐκέλευον ὅτι καὶ σφεῖς, εἰ ἐβούλοντο ἀδικεῖν, ἤδη ἂν ᾿Αργείους 46. 3. 
ξυμμάχους πεποιῆσθαι, ὡς παρεῖναί γ᾽ αὐτοὺς αὐτοῦ τούτου ἕνεκα. 

Two constructions are confused: the clause beginning with 
Sri καὶ σφεῖς proceeds as if εἰπεῖν ἐκέλευον σφᾶς had preceded. 


The hundred years’ alliance between Athens, Argos, Elis, and 47. 
Mantinea, and their allies, is defensive only. All the confederates are 
to act together. The other provisions relate to the conditions on ° 
which assistance is to be given to any state which is attacked, 
and to the formalities necessary for the ratification of the treaty. 
We may remark, with Mr. Grote, that Mantinea and Elis, no less 
than Argos and Athens, are spoken of as imperial states, the 
meaning being that the towns which Mantinea had acquired (v. 
29 init.) and Lepreum, which was claimed by Elis (v. 31), are 
recognised as their allies and subjects (ξύμμαχοι ὧν ἄρχουσι). 

A fragment of a marble tablet containing small portions of 
twenty-six lines of this treaty was discovered in 1877 on the 
Acropolis, and has been published by Kirchhoff (Hermes, xii. p. 
368 ff.) He notes thirty-one variations between the text of Bekker 
and the inscription. But of these only seven occur in the inscrip- 
tion itself, the rest are but variations from Kirchhoff’s conjectural 
restoration. It should be observed however that the inscription 
appears to have been written στοιχηδόν, i. 6. in equal lines, and that 
each letter fills up the same space; hence it can in some places 
be restored with tolerable certainty. 


47. 


212 THUCYDIDES. 


The seven variations between the existing part of the inscription 
and the text of Thucydides are as follows. In § 1 the inscription 
inserts πρὸς ἀλλήλους after ᾿Ηλεῖοι. In ὃ 3 the inscription has [Μα]»- 
τινέας καὶ Ἠλείους], and Μαντινέας καί for καὶ Μαντινέας, Showing that 
words were transposed; and similarly in ὃ 4, τὴν ᾿Αργείων ἥ for ἣ 
τὴν ᾿Αργείων. At the end of ὃ 4 the inscription has ἐάν for ἦν. In 
§ 7 it has -vy τῇ o-, showing that some other word than τὴν ἦγε- 
poviay followed μεταπεμψαμένη, and also -s ταῖς [πόλεσι], showing 
that some other word than δόξῃ preceded ταῖς. These differences 
are very slight. On the other hand it may be remarked that they 
occur in a fragment which amounts only to about a twelfth of the 
whole treaty. 

Assuming for the moment the correctness of Kirchhoffs con- 
jectures, we may compare the text of Thucydides with the treaty as 
restored by him. Of thirty-one variations (see Classen, Intr.to Bk. 
viii. p. xxiv), thirteen are merely orthographical (ἐάν for ἣν or θάλατταν 
for θάλασσαν). In three cases the order of the names, ‘ Eleans, 
Mantineans, Argives,’ is reversed. In four cases the inscription 
inserts or repeats, probably for the sake of clearness, words which 
do not occur in our text. On the other hand our text inserts rais 
πόλεσιν after δοκῇ in ὃ 4. In eight cases the variations occur in 
places where the restoration has little or no ground on which to 
rest. If we set these aside, the variations reduce themselves to 
two more or less probable conjectures, ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν for ἐς τὴν γὴν 
(§ 3), and ὧν ἄρχουσι for ὧν ἂν ἄρχωσι (ὃ 5). Τῆς importance of 
these variations, even if they could be substantiated, is reduced by 
the fact that dv ἄρχουσιν and ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν are apparently used as 
equivalents for ὧν ἂν ἄρχωσιν and ἐς τὴν γῆν in other parts of the 
treaty (§§ 1, 4). 

The uncertainty of the whole subject is greatly increased by 
the circumstance, @) that a very small fragment of the inscription 
remains, containing in all not more than seventy words or parts of 
words out of several hundred; δ) that the letters required by the 
missing portions of the tablet appear to be, in three lines out of 
the twenty-six, greatly in excess of the number found in the text 
of Thucydides; c) that the restoration of the inscription is in many 
places so uncertain that no inference can be drawn from it. 


NOTES, BOOK Γ΄. 313 


It must be admitted, either that several words (though we cannot 47. 
tell what they are) should be added to the text of Thucydides, or 
that the lost portion of the treaty was not regularly written, or in 
some other way different from the existing portion. 

So far from the inscription tending to overthrow the text of Thu- 
cydides (and from this point of view Schéne, Hermes, xii. p. 476, 
thinks that ‘its importance cannot be estimated highly enough’) 
no conclusion can be drawn either way from such a mere fragment. 
The verbal differences are very slight, and they may have come 
from Thucydides himself. Nor do slight inaccuracies in the copy- 
ing of a treaty afford any real ground of argument as to the text 
of other parts of the history. 


ὅπλα δὲ μὴ ἐᾶν ἔχοντας διϊέναι ἐπὶ πολέμῳ διὰ τῆς γῆς τῆς σφετέρας 47. 5. 
αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων, ὧν ἂν ἄρχωσιν ἑκάτεροι, μηδὲ κατὰ θάλασσαν. 
Not as Classen supposes, because the sea was the domain of 
Athens, but because the provision against allowing troops to pass 
by land would have been useless if they had been allowed to pass 
by sea. Cp. note on c. 56. 2, where the duty of Athens to protect 
her allies from attack by sea is not based upon this clause. 


τοῖς δὲ βοηθοῦσιν ἡ πόλις ἡ πέμπουσα παρεχέτω μέχρι μὲν τριάκοντα 47. 6. 
ἡμερῶν σῖτον, ἐπὴν ἔλθῃ ἐς τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐπαγγείλασαν βοηθεῖν, καὶ ἀπιοῦσι 
κατὰ ταὐτά. 

ἀπιοῦσι, i.e, besides the provisions for the thirty days after their 
arrival, they were to receive provisions for their journey homeward, 
(not necessarily for thirty days). 


τρεῖς ὀβόλους Aiywaious . . . δραχμὴν Aiywaiay. 47. 6. 
Cp. note on iii. 70. 4. 


καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὑπὸ ᾿Ηλείων εἴρχθησαν, ὥστε μὴ θύειν, pnd 49. 1. 
ἀγωνίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐκτίνοντες τὴν δίκην αὐτοῖς, ἣν ἐν τῷ ᾿Ολυμπιακῷ νόμῳ 


᾿Ηλεῖοι κατεδικάσαντο αὐτῶν, φάσκοντες σφᾶς ἐπὶ Φύρκον τε τεῖχος ὅπλα 


᾽ - 4 3 ’ “ «a ς , 9 “Ἂν a a 3 
ἐπενεγκεῖν καὶ és Λέπρευν αὑτῶν ὁπλίτας ἐν ταῖς ᾿Ολυμπιακαῖς σπονδαῖς ἐσ- 
πέμψαι. 


σφᾶς reverts to the more remote subject of the whole sentence, 
of Λακεδαιμόνιοι (sO Classen). It may be regarded as the remnant of 


214 THUCYDIDES. 


49. 1. the Herodotean usage of σφέας, etc. for αὐτούς, which is not altogether 
extinct in Thucydides (cp. iv. 113, of δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι... of μέν τινες ὀλίγοι 
διαφθείρονται x.r.A. κατέφυγον δὲ καὶ τῶν Τορωναίων ἐς αὐτοὺς ὅσοι ἦσαν 
σφίσιν ἐπιτήδειοι). 

The use of it in these two places may have arisen partly out of a 
desire to avoid the repetition of αὐτούς. -Cp., for a similar tendency, 
notes on ili. 45. 4, vii. 69. 2. 


49.4. οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ὑπελάμβανον οὐ χρεὼν εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐπαγγεῖλαι ἔτι ἐς 
Λακεδαίμονα, εἰ ἀδικεῖν γε ἤδη ἐνόμιζον αὐτούς" ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς νομέζοντας 
τοῦτο δρᾶσαι, καὶ ὅπλα οὐδαμόσε ἔτι αὐτοῖς ἐπενεγκεῖν. 

ἐπενεγκεῖν, 501]. αὐτοί, referring to the Lacedaemonians, as δρᾶσαι 
to the Eleans. Both are dependent on ὑπελάμβανον. 


50. 3. ὅμως de of ᾿Ἠλεῖοι δεδιότες, μὴ Big θύσωσι, ξὺν ὅπλοις τῶν νεωτέρων 
φυλακὴν εἶχον᾽ ἦλθον δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ᾿Αργεῖοι καὶ Μαντινῆς, χίλιοι ἑκατέρων, 
καὶ ᾿Αθηναίων ἱππῆς, οἵ ἐν “Apyer ὑπέμενον τὴν ἑορτήν. 

The expression ἦλθον αὐτοῖς (‘came to their support’), applied to 
the Athenian ἱππεῖς, would be misleading according to the ordinary 
interpretation, 1) which supposes that, instead of coming to Olympia, 
the troops waited at Argos in case they should be wanted. But 
Argos was seventy or eighty miles distant from Olympia. It is 
therefore more likely 2)* that they remained at Argos only until 
the time of the feast and then came on to Olympia, as indeed 
is expressly said in the word ἦλθον. 

ot ὑπέμενοντΞΞ' who had becn waiting,’ the imperfect expresses 
duration without specification of time, and is therefore capable of 
being referred to the time preceding ἦλθον, or, in the language of 
old grammanians, is ‘ put for the pluperfect.’ Cp. ii. 23 init. ὄντων 
δὲ αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ, οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀπέστειλαν τὰς ἑκατὸν vais περὶ Πελοπόν- 


moov, ἅσπερ παρεσκευάζοντο, ‘ which they had been preparing.’ 


50. 4. ὥστε πολλῷ δὴ μᾶλλον ἐπεφόβηντο πάντες, καὶ ἐδόκει τι νέον ἔσεσθαι. 
οἱ μέντοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἡσύχασάν τε, καὶ ἡ ἑορτὴ αὐτοῖς οὕτω διῆλθεν. 
αὐτοῖς refers to the same subject as πάντες, ‘and so they had no 
disturbance at the feast,’ not to the Lacedaemonians. 
The old grudge was not forgotten by the Lacedaemonians ; 
cp. Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 21. 


NOTES, BOOK V. 315 


ἐδόκει δὲ καὶ ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας τὴν ᾿Επίδαυρον τῷ τε ᾿Αλκιβιάδῃ καὶ τοῖς 58. 
᾿Αργείοις προσλαβεῖν, ἣν δύνωνται, τῆς τε Κορίνθου ἕνεκα ἡσυχίας, καὶ 
ἐκ τῆς Αἰγίνης βραχυτέραν ἔσεσθαι τὴν βοήθειαν ἣ Σκύλλαιον περιπλεῖν τοῖς 
᾿Αθηναίοις. παρεσκευάζοντο οὖν οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι ὡς αὐτοὶ ἐς τὴν ᾿Επίδαυρον διὰ 
τοῦ θύματος τὴν ἔσπραξιν ἐσβαλοῦντες. 

ἕνεκα and ἔσεσθαι are parallel in sense, but with ἕνεκα, ἐδόκει 
προσλαβεῖν is to be supplied ; with ἔσεσθαι, ἐδόκει only. Cp. note on 
1, 9. 3. § 6. 

avroi, of their own accord, i. e. independently of the influence of 
Alcibiades. | 


᾿Αργεῖοι δ᾽, ἀναχωρησάντων αὐτῶν, τοῦ mpd τοῦ Καρνείου μηνὸς ἐξελθόντες 54. 3. 
τετράδι φθίνοντος, καὶ ἄγοντες τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην πάντα τὸν χρόνον, 
ἐσέβαλλον ἐς τὴν ᾿Επιδαυρίαν καὶ ἐδήουν. 

The Argives, instead of keeping the month Carnea (Meta- 
geitnion or August—September) pretended that they were continuing 
to keep the 27th day of the previous month, on which the ex- 
pedition started. 

See note in Grote, part IT. ch. lvi. init. It appears from Xen. 

Hell. iv. 7. 2. 3, v. 1. 29, that on a subsequent occasion the Argives 
tried to arrest a Spartan invasion by sending heralds to Agesipolis, 
warning him that it was the time of a sacred truce, though in reality 
it was not, and that he did not venture to disregard the warning, 
until he had obtained the sanction of the oracles at Olympia and 
Delphi. 
© καὶ καθ᾽ ὃν χρόνον ἐν τῇ ᾿Επιδαύρῳ οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι ἦσαν, ἐς Μαντίνειαν 66. 1. 
πρεσβεῖαι ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων ξυνῆλθον, ᾿Αθηναίων παρακαλεσάντων. 
The conference was summoned by the Athenians, but the 

remark of Euphamidas, the Corinthian envoy, which follows, gave 
it a turn opposed to the Athenian interests. 


καὶ ᾿Αθηναίων αὐτοῖς χίλιοι ἐβοήθησαν ὁπλῖται, καὶ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης στρατηγός" 6B. 4. 
πυθόμενοι δὲ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ἐξεστρατεῦσθαι, καὶ ὡς οὐδὲν ἔτι αὐτῶν 
ἔδει, ἀπῆλθον. 

The meaning given in the English text agrees best with the 
context. But it requires that, in the same chapter, ἐκστρατεῦσαι 


665. 4. 


56. 2. 


56. 3. 


68. 1. 


316 THUCYDIDES. 


should be used in the sense of ‘making, and éfeorparevoda, of 
‘having terminated, an expedition.’ Either 1) the latter meaning 
is to be attributed solely to the perfect tense: or 2) the verb ἐκ- 
στρατεύειν, like ἐξανθεῖν, ἐξάδειν, ἐκπνεῖν, ΟΡ. also ἀπολοφύρεσθαι, has the 
double sense of ‘acting’ and ‘ceasing to act. The ordinary 
meaning of ἐκστρατεύεσθαι is clearly out of place. For the hostile 
movement of the Lacedaemonians could not possibly be a reason 
why the Argives had no need of the Athenians (καὶ ὡς οὐδὲν ἔτι αὐτῶν 
ἔδει). 


᾿Αργεῖοι δ᾽ ἔλθόντες παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίους, ἐπεκάλουν, ὅτι, γεγραμμένον ἐν ταῖς 
σπονδαῖς διὰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἑκάστους μὴ ἐᾶν πολεμίους διϊέναι, ἐάσειαν κατὰ 
θάλασσαν παραπλεῦσαι. 

κατὰ θάλασσαν. The sea, or at any rate the sea opposite to Attica, 
is here regarded as Athenian territory, and the Athenians are held 
responsible for allowing ships of war to pass through it. It is 
observable that the Argives do not appeal to the words of the 
treaty which forbade the members of the confederacy to allow the 
transport of troops by sea for a hostile purpose, v. 47. 5, ὅπλα δὲ 
μὴ ἐᾶν ἔχοντας διϊέναι ἐπὶ πολέμῳ διὰ τῆς γῆς σφετέρας αὐτῶν. .. μηδὲ 
κατὰ θάλασσαν, perhaps because the other way of raising the question 
was more flattering to the Athenians as lords of the sea. . 


᾿Αθηναῖοι δέ, ᾿Αλκιβιάδου πείσαντος, TH μὲν Λακωνικῇ στήλῃ ὑπέγραψαν, 
ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέμειναν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοῖς ὅρκοις. 
The effect of these diplomatic manceuvres on the minds of Athe- 
nian wives may be seen from Aristoph. Lysistr. (411 B.c.) 512,— 
AYSISTPATH, εἶτ᾽ ἀλγοῦσαι τἄνδοθεν ὑμᾶς ἐπανηρόμεθ᾽ ἂν γελάσασαι, 
τί βεβούλευται περὶ τῶν σπονδῶν ἐν τῇ στήλῃ παραγράψαι 
ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τήμερον ὑμῖν ; τί δέ σοι τοῦτ᾽ ; ἦ δ᾽ ὃς ἂν ἁνήρ, 
οὐ σιγήσει ; κἀγὼ ᾿σίγων. ΤΎΝΗ. A. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἐγώ ποτ᾽ ἐσίγων. 
AY. ἕτερόν τι πονηρότερον δήπου βοὐύλευμ᾽ ἐπεπύσμεθ᾽ ἂν ὑμῶν' 
εἶτ᾽ ἠρόμεθ᾽ ἄν" πῶς ταῦτ᾽, ὦνερ, διαπράττεσθ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἀνοήτως : 
ὁ δέ μ᾽ εὐθὺς ὑποβλέψας ἂν ἔφασκ᾽, εἰ μὴ τὸν στήμονα νήσω, 
ὀτοτύξεσθαι μακρὰ τὴν κεφαλήν᾽ πόλεμος δ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσει. 


3 “ ‘ 4 ~ 4 4 -~ cd 
Apyeiot δὲ προαισθόμενοι τό τε πρῶτον τὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, 


NOTES, BOOK V. 317 


καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐς τὸν Φλιοῦντα βουλόμενοι τοῖς ἄλλοις προσμῖξαι ἐχώρουν, τότε 68. I. 
δὴ ἐξεστράτευσαν καὶ αὐτοί. . 

τό τε πρῶτον answers to καὶ ἐπειδή, with which αἰσθόμενοι must be 
supplied from προαισθόμενο. The Argives received the first intima- 
tion of the intention of the Lacedaemonians from the preparations 
of their allies; afterwards their purpose was more distinctly revealed 
by the march of the troops to Phlius. τότε δή refers only to the — 
clause beginning καὶ ἐπειδῆ. The sentence would have run more 
regularly, ᾿Αργεῖοι δὲ προήσθοντό re... καὶ ἐπειδή κιτιλ. 


ἐν ᾧ Λακεδαιμόνιοί τε πανστρατιᾷ ἦσαν, καὶ ᾿Αρκάδες καὶ Βοιωτοὶ καὶ BO. 3. 
Κορίνθιοι καὶ Σικυώνιοι καὶ Πελληνῆς καὶ Φλιάσιοι καὶ Μεγαρῆς, καὶ οὗτοι 
πάντες λογάδες ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστων κ-τιλ. 

But cp. c. 57 fin. Φλιάσιοι δὲ πανστρατιᾷ, ὅτι ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων ἦν τὸ 


στράτευμα. 


τόν τε Θράσυλλον ἀναχωρήσαντες ἐν τῷ Χαράδρῳ, οὗπερ τὰς ἀπὸ στρατείας BO. 6. 
δίκας, πρὶν ἐσιέναι, κρίνουσιν, ἤρξαντο λεύειν. 

We remark that nothing is said here of Alciphron, the other 
Argive who went to Agis, perhaps because he was not one of the 
generals ; see c. 59 fin. 


ὅμως γὰρ τὰς σπονδὰς ὥκνουν λῦσαι πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους. 61. 1. 
ὅμως, either 1)* although they were dissatisfied with the treaty, 
or 2) although the Athenians had come to their aid. 


καὶ ἔλεγον of ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ᾿Αλκιβιάδου πρεσβευτοῦ παρόντος, ἐν re τοῖς Bl. 2. 
᾿Αργείοις καὶ ξυμμάχοις ταῦτα, ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθῶς αἱ σπονδαὶ ἄνευ τῶν ἄλλων 
ξυμμάχων καὶ γένοιντο, καὶ viv... ἅπτεσθαι χρῆναι τοῦ πολέμου. 

ταῦτα is to be explained by the clause which follows, ὅτι οὐκ κιτιλ, 

The correction ταὐτά has not a sufficient antecedent in the words 
κατηνάγκασαν δεόμενοι, SUPT. 

xai==‘even, or ‘at all,’ and need not be connected with the καὶ 
following. ‘They had no business to make a treaty at all without 
the consent of the other allies.’ Cp. i. 15. 2 and note, πάντες δὲ ἦσαν 
ὅσοι καὶ ἐγένοντο, πρὸς ὁμόρους τοὺς σφετέρους ἑκάστοις. 


The ‘robust sophistry’ of Alcibiades is plainly visible in this 


61. 2. 


θ1. 4. 


63. 


65. 


65. 


65. 5. 


2. 


2. 


3. 


318 THUCYDIDES. 


matter. ‘It was no question of breaking the treaty, for the treaty 
ought never to have been made.’ 


βουλόμενοι ἄλλως re προσγενέσθαι σφίσι καὶ ὅμηροι ἐκ τῆς "Apxadias 
ἦσαν αὐτόθι ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων κείμενοι. 

The omission of ὅτε before καὶ ὅμηροι gives emphasis and liveliness. 
Here, as in i. 110. 2 and elsewhere, Thucydides, beginning to speak 
in the person of others, suddenly changes to his own. Poppo- 
compares some examples from Latin historians, Livy xliii. 19, 
Tac. Ann. i. 62, Hist. i. 76, ‘penes Othonem manebant, non 
partium studio, sed erat grande momentum in nomine urbis.’ 


δέκα μυριάσι δραχμῶν. 
Cp. note on iii. 70. 4. 


δηλῶν τῆς ἐξ “Apyous ἐπαιτίου ἀναχωρήσεως τὴν παροῦσαν dxatpoy 
προθυμίαν ἀνάληψιν βουλομένην εἶναι. 

βονλομένην is altered for the worse by Classen against the authority 
of the MSS. into βουλόμενον, scil. Agis. Cp. iii. 14 fin. γίγνεσθε δὲ 
ἄνδρος olovorrep ὑμᾶς... TO ἡμέτερον δέος βούλεται. 


ὁ δὲ εἴτε καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐπιβόημα, εἴτε καὶ αὐτῷ ἄλλο τι ἢ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δόξαν 
ἐξαίφνης, πάλιν τὸ στράτευμα κατὰ τάχος, πρὶν ξυμμῖξαι, ἀπῆγε. 

The received mode of rendering the passage, 1)* ‘ because some 
new thought struck him,’ is not free from objection. The words 
κατὰ τὸ αὐτό are cumbrous, and ill suited to express the meaning, 
‘his previous purpose.’ For the pleonasm, however, cp. Herod. 
viii, 4, mapa δόξαν τὰ πρήγματα ἀπέβαινε ἣ ὡς αὐτοὶ κατεδόκεον) But as 
they are found in all the MSS. we are not justified in omitting them 
if a reasonable meaning can be elicited from them. And 2) a fur- 
ther alternative may be intended. ‘Some other motive may have 
influenced him, or the same idea may have occurred to him inde- 
pendently,’ εἴτε καὶ αὐτῷ ἄλλο τι (δόξαν), ἣ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δόξαν. 


εἴτ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἀναχωροῦντες ἐκεῖνοι ἀπέκρυψαν κιτιλ. 

Scil. αὐτούς Ξε’ passed out of their sight,’ said in the same way as 
φεύγειν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος τῶν λόγων ἀποκρύψαντα γῆν, Plato, Protag. 338 A. 
Cp. Virg. Aen. iii. 291, Phaeacum abscondimus arces. 


NOTES, BOOK V. 319 


of re Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος πρὸς τὸ ‘HpdxAciov πάλιν és. τὸ αὐτὸ 66. I. 
στ εδον ἰόντες ὁρῶσι δι᾽ ὀλίγον τοὺς ἐναντίους ἐν τάξει τε ἤδη πάντας 
καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ λόφου προεληλυθότας. μάλιστα δὴ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ἐς ὃ ἐμέ- 
μνήῆντο, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐξεπλάγησαν. διὰ βραχείας γὰρ μελλήσεως ἡ 
“ταρασκευὴ αὐτοῖς ἐγίγνετο κιτιλ. 

It is useless to ask, with some commentators, why the Lacedae- 
monians, who had originally designed to draw the Argives into the 
plain, should have been dismayed by their actual appearance. 
Thucydides-says that such was the fact; and it is clear from his 
narrative that, wherever they expected to find them, it was not at 
that moment or in that place. Agis had supposed that they would 
descend into the plain to prevent the diversion of the stream, but 
they had not done so ; hence the Spartans were naturally surprised 
to find them in the plain at all. To meet such an imaginary 
difficulty it is unnecessary, with Campe and Meineke, to alter ἐξε- 
πλάγησαν into ἐξεφάνησαν (the Lacedaemonians appeared in their 
true character), in itself a somewhat forced and feeble expression. 


βασιλέως γὰρ ἄγοντος in’ ἐκείνου πάντα ἄρχεται. 66. 3. 
I.e. notwithstanding the limitations imposed upon him when at 
home, he is supreme in the field. 


ἀριθμὸν δὲ γράψαι. . . οὐκ ἂν ἐδυνάμην ἀκριβῶς. 68. 2. 
The use of ἄν has been explained by the ellipse of.some such 
words as εἰ ἤθελον, εἰ ἐπειρώμην. But such ellipses are only gram- 
matical explanations, and are seldom present to the mind. It is 
better to regard the words ἐδυνάμην dy as an example of the 
tendency to soften the force of the indicative mood, especially 
with the first person. 


λόχοι μὲν γὰρ ἐμάχοντο ἑπτὰ ἄνευ Σκιριτῶν, ὄντων ἑξακοσίων, ἐν δὲ 68. 3. 
ἑκάστῳ λόχῳ πεντηκοστύες ἦσαν τέσσαρες, καὶ ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστύϊ ἐνωμοτίαι 
τέσσαρες. τῆς τε ἐνωμοτίας ἐμάχοντο ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ζυγῷ τέσσαρες" ἐπὶ δὲ 
βάθος ἐτάξαντο μὲν οὐ πάντες ὁμοίως, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς λοχαγὸς ἕκαστος ἐβούλετο, 
ἐπὶ πᾶν δὲ κατέστησαν ἐπὶ ὀκτώ. παρὰ δὲ ἅπαν πλὴν Σκιριτῶν τετρακόσιοι 
καὶ δυοῖν δέοντες πεντήκοντα ἄνδρες ἡ πρώτη τάξις ἦν. 

A curious result would seem to follow from this passage. For if 
the number of ἐνωμοτίαι in the λόχος was fixed, and if on this 


420 THUCYDIDES. 


68. 3. occasion there were four men in the front rank of each é»wporia, it 


69. 


69. 


2. 


is clear a) that the λοχαγός could only deepen one part of the line 
at the expense of another, 4) that he could only do so at all by 
breaking up the ἐνωμοτίαι, that is, by posting the rear rank of one 
évoporia behind another. 

Mr. Grote is of opinion that the λοχαγός had the power of 
altering the number of ἐνωμοτίαι in the λόχος before the battle began. 
But 1) it is impossible to suppose that Thucydides in the same 
description, without any hint of a change, refers a) te the normal 
arrangement of the troops as they marched out of Sparta, 4) to 
their disposition on the field of battle. And 2) how could the 
Aoxayds have had the power of varying the number of ἐνωμοτίαι in 
ἃ λόχος, if, as Thucydides tells us, the front rank in the field num- 
bered 448, and there were always four men in the front rank of an 
enomoty ἡ 

The array of the Spartan army appears to have varied at different 
times. The form of the enomoty on this occasion does not agree 
with the statement of Xenophon, Hell. vi. 4. 12, that at the battle 
of Leuctra the enomoty consisted of thirty-six men, three in the 
first rank by twelve deep. Moreover Xenophon (De Rep. Lac. 
11. 4) makes mention of the μόρα, commanded by the πολεμαρχός, 
and containing four λόχοι, as the largest division of the Spartan 
army. Thucydides, though he describes the πολεμαρχός as superior 
to the λοχαγός (c. 66. med., cp. however, c. 71 fin.), makes no 
mention of the μόρα. 


᾿Αργείοις δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς τε παλαιᾶς ἡγεμονίας καὶ τῆς ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ ποτὲ 
ἰσομοιρίας. 

The first in the Homeric and Heroic ages, the second in the 
times before the Persian war, not forgotten at Argos, when the 
Argives fought with the Lacedaemonians about the debatable 
Cynurian land. Herod. i. 82, vii. 148, 149; Thue. v. 41. 


Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ κάθ᾽ ἑκάστους τε καὶ μετὰ τῶν πολεμικῶν νόμων 
ἐν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ὧν ἠπίσταντο τὴν παρακέλευσιν τῆς μνήμης ἀγαθοῖς οὖσιν 
ἐποιοῦντο. 

‘They encouraged one another as individuals, and in the martial 
strains which they sang in common,’ 


NOTES, BOOK V. 321 


᾿Αργεῖοι μὲν καὶ of ξύμμαχοι ἐντόνως καὶ ὀργῇ χωροῦντες, Λακεδαιμόνιοι 70. 
δὲ βραδέως καὶ ὑπὸ αὐλητῶν πολλῶν νόμου ἐγκαθεστώτων, οὐ τοῦ θείου χάριν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ὁμαλῶς μετὰ ῥυθμοῦ βαίνοντες προέλθοιεν, καὶ μὴ διασπασθείη 
αὐτοῖς ἡ τάξις. 

Cp. the well-known lines of Milton :— 

‘Anon they move 
In perfect phalanx to the Dorian mood 
Of flutes and soft recorders: such as raised 
To highth of noblest temper heroes old 
Arming to battle; and instead of rage 
Deliberate valour breathed, firm, and unmov’d 
With dread of death to flight or foul retreat.’ 
Paradise Lost, i. 549. 


τὰ στρατόπεδα ποιεῖ μὲν καὶ ἅπαντα τοῦτο. ἐπὶ τὰ δέξιὰ κέρατα αὐτῶν 71. 1. 
ἐν ταῖς ξυνόδοις μᾶλλον ἐξωθεῖται, καὶ περιίσχουσι κατὰ τὸ τῶν ἐναντίων 
εὐώνυμον ἀμφότεροι τῷ δεξιῷ, διὰ τὸ φοβουμένους προστέλλειν τὰ γυμνὰ 
ἕκαστον ὡς a τῇ τοῦ ἐν δεξιᾷ παρατεταγμένου ἀσπίδι, καὶ νομίζειν τὴν 
πυκνότητα τῆς ξυγκλήσεως εὐσκεπαστότατον εἶναι᾽ καὶ ἡγεῖται μὲν τῆς 
αἰτίας ταύτης ὁ πρωτοστάτης τοῦ δεξιοῦ κέρως, προθυμούμενος ἐξαλλάσσειν 
ἀεὶ τῶν ἐναντίων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γύμνωσιν, ἕπονται δὲ διὰ τὸν αὐτὸν φόβον καὶ 
οἱ ἄλλοι. 

ἡγεῖται τῆς αἰτίας ταύτης, ‘is the beginning of the disorder,’ lit. ‘ of 
the cause of blame.’ Every one is pushing to the right, because he 
is trying to protect his right or unshielded side. The movement 
begins with the man on the extreme right in the front rank. He 
tries to get more and more to the right of the enemy so as to keep 
his shield between himself and them. The next soldier tries to 
get under cover of his neighbour’s shield, and so on, along the 
line. Now the army of Agis was sufficient to outflank both the 
left and right extremity of the enemy’s line. But it was so disposed 
that, while the Spartan right far more than outflanked the enemy’s 
left, their left wing was liable itself to be outflanked by the enemy’s 
right. To remedy this defect the Sciritae on the left wing of the 
Spartan army moved further to the left. The vacant space should 
then have been filled up by troops taken from the right wing. But, 
they refusing to come, the gap which had been made remained 

VOL. It. ¥ 


71. 1. 


72. I. 


72. 2. 


72. 4. 


322 THUCYDIDES. 


and could no longer be closed. Mr. Grote reminds us that Agis 
could not deprive the Sciritae of their post of honour at the 
extremity of the left wing. 


καὶ κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τοὺς Σκιρίτας ὡς ov παρῆλθον of λόχοι, πάλιν 
αὖ σφίσι προσμίξαι, μὴ δυνηθῆναι ἔτι μηδὲ τούτους ξυγκλῇσαι. 

σφίσι, the Lacedaemonian portion of the line under Agis. Cp. 
ἐξαγαγόντας ἀπὸ σφῶν, ς. 71 fin. μηδὲ τούτους ξυγκλῇσαι, 1) ‘even to close 
up the line,’ i.e. to bring together the Sciritae and the Lacedaemo- 
nians who were on the other side of the opening, Agis being the 
subject and τούτους the object of ξυγκλῇσαι, and the latter referring 
inaccurately both to σφίσι and the Sciritae; or better 2)* taking 
τούτους as the subject of ξυγκλῇσαι, ‘but neither could these close 
up the opening,’ scil. the Sciritae, opposed to the two λόχοι who 
should have done so. 


ἀλλὰ μάλιστα δὴ κατὰ πάντα τῇ ἐμπειρίᾳ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἔλασσωθέντες 
τότε τῇ ἀνδρείᾳ ἔδειξαν οὐχ ἧσσον περιγενόμενοι. 

‘The utter inferiority of the Lacedaemonians in military tactics 
showed,’ 1) ‘that they gained the victory by their courage in spite 
of this deficiency’ (οὐχ ἧσσον), or 2)* ‘that they won by sheer 
courage, i. 6. by courage rather than by skill or tactics; οὐχ focor= 
μᾶλλον, and is to be closely connected with τῇ ἀνδρείᾳ, 

μάλιστα δή is to be taken both with ἐλασσωθέντες and with ἔδειξαν, 
‘ being signally inferior in every way in military skill, they signally 
showed that they won nevertheless by their courage,’ or ‘that they 
won by sheer courage.’ τότε may be taken either with ἐλασσωθέντες 
or with ἔδειξαν, ‘being then beaten in tactics,’ or ‘they then 
showed,’ etc.; or with both, ‘on this occasion being signally beaten 
in tactics they signally showed.’ 


ἔτρεψαν οὐδὲ ἐς χεῖρας τοὺς πολλοὺς ὑπομείναντας, ἀλλ᾽, ὡς ἐπήεσαν οἱ 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι, εὐθὺς ἐνδύντας, καὶ ἔστιν ods καὶ καταπατηθέντας, τοῦ μὴ 
φθῆναι τὴν ἐγκατάληψιν. 

τοῦ μὴ φθῆναι, either 1) after ἐνδόντας, ‘that the overtaking troops 
(τὴν ἐγκατάληψιν) might not prevent’ or ‘be beforehand with them;’ or 
2)* after xaramarnOévras, ‘ because they could not escape being over- 
taken.’ The genitive in the latter case may be explained by the 


NOTES, BOOK V. 323 


notion of cause or reason. Cp. Soph. O. T. 1478,— 72. 4: 
καί σε τῆσδε τῆς ὁδοῦ 
δαίμων ἄμεινον ἣ ᾽μὲ φρουρήσας τύχοι. 
The alteration of τοῦ into τῷ, though slight, is not necessary. 


ὡς δὲ ταύτῃ ἐνεδεδώκει τὸ τῶν ᾿Αργείων καὶ ξυμμάχων στράτευμα, Tapep- 78. 1. 
ῥήγνυντο ἤδη ἅμα καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα. 

‘They were broken away towards both sides,’ i.e. the centre of 
the Argive line was separated from the right which had gone for- 
wards in pursuit and from the left which had not yet been forced 
back. Cp. iv. 96 fin. καὶ ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἤδη, ὑπό τε τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ ὑπὸ 
τῶν Θηβαίων ἐφεπομένων καὶ παραῤῥηγνύντων φυγὴ καθειστήκει παντὸς τοῦ 
στρατοῦ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, where similarly the Athenian left are broken 
away from their own victorious right. In vi. 70 med. (ὡσαμένων δὲ. 
τῶν ᾿Αργείων πρῶτον τὸ εὐώνυμον κέρας τῶν Συρακοσίων, καὶ per’ αὐτοὺς τῶν 
᾿Αθηναίων τὸ κατὰ σφᾶς αὐτούς, παρεῤῥήγνυτο ἤδη καὶ τὸ ἄλλο στράτευμα 
τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ ἐς φυγὴν κατέστη), παρεῤῥήγνυτο Must have a slightly 
different meaning, ‘broke away by degrees,’ cp. παραμβλύνειν, παρα- 
πείθειν, παρατρώγειν, mapapOopd. Lit. ‘broke away each man from 
the side of the next man,’ the converse of παρατάσσειν Ὁ 


οἱ δὲ Μαντινῆς καὶ of ξύμμαχοι καὶ τῶν ᾿Αργείων οἱ λογάδες... ἐς φυγὴν 78. 3. 
ἐτράποντο. καὶ τῶν μὲν Μαντινέων καὶ πλείους διεφθάρησαν, τῶν δὲ ᾿Αργείων 
λογάδων τὸ πολὺ ἐσώθη. | 

Either 1)* the order of the clauses is inverted; πλείους is said 
by anticipation, and contrasts the greater loss of the Mantineans 
with the smaller loss of the Argives implied in τὸ πολὺ ἐσώθη. 
‘And moreover there perished of the Mantineans a greater number . 
than of the Argives,’ καί is then to be taken, not with πλείους, 
but with διεφθάρησαν, ‘there was loss as well as flight.’ 

Or 2) more simply, καὶ mAeiovs=‘even more than those who 
escaped,’ and corresponds to τὸ πολὺ τῶν ᾿Αργείων, ‘a greater number 
of the Mantineans were slain, but most of the chosen Argives 
escaped.’ | 


of δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι προθέμενοι τῶν πολεμίων νεκρῶν τὰ ὅπλα τροπαῖον 74, 2. 
εὐθὺς ἵστασαν, καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐσκύλευον. 
προθέμενοι xr... Not ‘stationing themselves in front of the 
enemy’s dead,’ which would have been expressed πρὸ τῶν πολεμίων 
Υ 2 


424 THUCYDIDES. 


74. 2, νεκρῶν θέμενοι ra Grka—but ‘making a display of the shields, spears, 
etc. of the dead,’ i.e. of the best of them. The conquerors after- 
wards rifled the dead more completely, ἐσκύλευον. 


74.3. Λακεδαιμονίων δὲ of μὲν ξύμμαχοι οὐκ ἐταλαιπώρησαν, ὥστε καὶ ἀξιόλογόν 
τι ἀπογενέσθαι' αὐτῶν δὲ χαλεπὸν μὲν ἦν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πυθέσθαι, ἔλέγοντο 
δὲ περὶ τριακοσίους ἀποθανεῖν. 

αὐτῶν is governed by περὶ τριακοσίους : χαλεπὸν μὲν ἦν... . πυθέσθαι 
being a variation of the construction originally intended. 


75. 3. τυχῇ μὲν ὡς ἐδόκουν κακιζόμενοι, γνώμῃ δὲ of αὐτοὶ ἔτι ὄντες. 
See note on English text. 


76.1. τοῦ δ᾽ ἐπιγιγνομένου χειμῶνος ἀρχομένου εὐθὺς of Aaxedatpdreos, ἐπειδὴ 
τὰ Κάρνεια ἤγαγον, ἐξεστράτευσαν. 
The Carnea were celebrated in Metageitnion, i.e. Aug.—Sept. 
But the words ἐπειδὴ τὰ Κάρνεια ἤγαγον, ‘now that the Carnea were 
over, are not intended as a mark of time, but have reference 
to the advantage taken of the Carnea by the enemies of Sparta 
(c. 74 fin.). They therefore prove nothing about the time at which 
Thucydides’ winter begins ; see note on v. 20. 2. 


76. 3. δύο λόγω φέρων ἐς τὸ “Apyos, τὸν μέν, καθ᾽ ὅ τι εἰ βούλονται πολεμεῖν, 
τὸν δ᾽, ὡς εἰ εἰρήνην ἄγειν. 
We must supply after καθ᾽ 6 τι, πολεμήσουσι; after ὡς, εἰρήνην 
ἄξουσι. 


77.79. These two treaties imposed by the victorious Lacedaemonians 
upon Argos mark the final dissolution of the alliance between Argos 
and the discontented members of the Peloponnesian league, and 
also of the alliance between Argos, Athens, Elis, and Mantinea. 

By the terms of the first treaty the Argives are to restore their 
hostages and to evacuate Epidauria. The quarrel with Epidaurus, 
which had given the Athenians a pretext for interference (v. 53), 
is to be amicably settled. 

A note of hostility to the Athenians is now first openly expressed 
(§§ 2, 8), not unnaturally, since the captives were recovered and the 
Athenians had taken part in the battle of Mantinea. 


NOTES, BOOK V. 325 


The independence of the cities of Peloponnesus, ‘small and 77.79. 
great, is proclaimed, probably to avoid the suspicion which had 
been engendered by the former treaty between Lacedaemon and 
Athens, c. 29, and on the other hand to prevent larger states, like 
Elis or Mantinea, increasing their power by the subjugation of 
smaller ones; cp. note on v. 47. 

All Peloponnesians are to unite against enemies from without 
(obviously against Athens, cp. c. 52, 61 init., 75 fin.) 

The allies of Lacedaemon without the Peloponnesus, i.e. Boeotia, 
Megara, and probably the Chalcidian cities, which had not been 
given up to the Athenians, are to stand on an equal footing with 
the rest of the allies, and to retain their present territory. 

Before the second treaty was concluded the Argives expressly 
renounced their alliance with Athens. 

The second treaty establishes an alliance offensive and defensive 
for fifty years between Lacedaemon and Argos, to which the rest 
of the Peloponnesus and the allies of either party without the 
Peloponnesus (no longer including the Athenians) are admitted on 
condition of submitting their disputes to a fair arbitration. The 
guarantees for the independence of the Peloponnesian cities, and 
for the integrity of the possessions of the rest (τὰν αὐτῶν ἔχοντες) 
are repeated, and new provisions are introduced for the settlement 
of differences. It may be observed that in the second treaty, ὃ 3, 
which corresponds to § 6 of the earlier treaty, the power of ap- 
portioning military burdens is transferred from the Peloponnesians 
generally to the Lacedaemonians and Argives. 

Still the original treaty of peace between Athens and Lacedaemon 
is supposed to be in force. Cp. vi. 105, vii. 18. 


περὶ δὲ τῶ σιῶ σύματος εἶμεν λῆν τοῖς ᾿Επιδαυρίοις ὅρκον, δόμεν δὲ αὐτοὺς 77. 4. 
ὁμόσαι. 

The readings are in great confusion ; the words which seem to 
underlie them all are ovparos ἔμεν or εἶμεν (of which there are traces 
in -atpev) λῆν, εἶμεν being the Doric for εἶναι. The parallelism with 
δόμεν affords some ground for thinking that the word λῆν or λῇν is 
a form of λαμβάνειν or λαβεῖν. This gives a good sense, but there 
is unfortunately no authority for such a form. We must therefore 


426 ᾿ THUCYDIDES. 


77. 4. suppose either 1) that the word is corrupt, or 2)* that it is tke 


77. 1. 


77. 8. 


infinitive of the verb Adw=é6éde, ‘ we will (λῆν) that there be <= 
oath to the Epidaurians,’ i.e..‘that the Epidaurians be allowed ὦ 
take an oath.’ With Aq» some notion such as ‘we say’ has 0 
be supplied from δοκεῖ at the beginning of the chapter. αὐτούς, sail 
the Argives. Cp. for εἶμεν ὅρκον v. 18 fin. ἔστω δὲ Λακεδαιμονίοις: καὶ 
τοῖς ξυμμάχοις κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὅρκος πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους, and for λῆν, Aristoge==” | 
Lysistr. 1161,— 
ΛΥΣΙΣΤΡΑΤΗ. ri δ᾽ οὐ διαλλάγητε ; φέρε, τί τοὐμποδών ; 
AAKQNES. ἀἀμές γε λῶμες, al τις ἁμὶν τοὔγκυκλον 
λῇ τοῦτ᾽ ἀποδόμεν. AY. ποῖον, ὦ τᾶν ; ΛΑ. τὴν Πύλου». 
ἅσπερ πάλαι δεόμεθα. ᾿ 
2 
ὅσοι δ᾽ ἐκτὸς Πελοποννάσω τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ξύμμαχοί ἐντι, ἐν τῷ 
αὐτῷ ἐσσοῦνται ἐν τῷπερ καὶ τοὶ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τοὶ τῶν ᾿Αργείων 
ξύμμαχοΐ ἐντι, τὰν αὑτῶν ἔχοντες. 
τὰν αὑτῶν ἔχοντες. These words mean that the s/a/us guo shall be 
maintained. They seem to imply an undertaking that Amphipolis and 
the other Chalcidian cities shall not be given up to the Athenians. 
Both now and afterwards (c. 80 med.) we must suppose the Lace- 
daemonians to disregard the clause in their treaty with Athens 
(v. 18. 5) which provided that these cities should not be counted 
as allies of either party. τοὶ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τοὶ τῶν ᾿Αργείων 
ξύμμαχοι, as the context shows, refers to the other allies of the 
Lacedaemonians and Argives, namely, to those within the Pelo- 
ponnesus. In the corresponding passage in the second treaty 
(c. 79. 2) the allies without the Peloponnesus are to be in the 
same position as the Argives and Lacedaemonians themselves : 
though it is difficult to see what may have been the difference 
intended. 


ἐπιδείξαντας δὲ τοῖς ξυμμάχοις ξυμβαλέσθαι, at xa αὐτοῖς δοκῇ" αἱ δέ τι 
δοκῇ τοῖς ξυμμάχοις, οἴκαδ᾽ ἀπιάλλην. 

Fither 1) ‘the Argives shall communicate the treaty to their allies 
and make an agreement with them if they, the allies, are willing, 
but if the allies want anything more the Argives shall send them 
home for instructions.’ This, however, is not a condition which a 
victorious power like Lacedaemon would be likely to allow, and 


NOTES, BOOK V. 327 


the word ἀπιάλλειν seems to imply, not a friendly ‘sending home 77. 8. 
for instructions,’ but a dismissal. 
Better 2)* referring αὐτοῖς to the Argives or to the Argives and 
Lacedaemonians, ‘they shall, if they think fit, communicate the 
treaty to their allies and come to an understanding with them; 
but if the allies have any different opinion on the matter they shall 
send them away home.’ 
3) The translation may be further varied by taking ἐπιδείξαντας, 
not ξυμβαλέσθαι, as the emphatic word, ‘they shall communicate 
the treaty to their allies’ before they conclude it,’ or by rendering 
ai xa αὐτοῖς δοκῇ, ‘in case the allies are willing to come into it.’ 
τοῖς ξυμμάχοις Clearly means the former allies of Argos, the Athe- 
mians, Eleans, and Mantineans, who would naturally be opposed 
t© the present treaty, and yet could hardly be left unmentioned. 
“Khe Athenians are to have the opportunity of consenting, but, 
f€ they do not, they are to be dismissed. 
ἐπιδείξαντας, though in grammar referring, like ἀλεξέμεναι above, 
-<> the Lacedaemonians and Argives, has in sense a more particular 
te=ference to the Argives, We naturally suspect that this clause 
~r-as aimed principally at Alcibiades, who at this very time was the 
(“«=presentative of Athens in Argos. 

ai δέ τι δοκῇ, scil. ἄλλο. A few MSS. read ἄλλο or καὶ ἄλλο. 


ai δέ τινι ray πολίων ἢ ἀμφίλογα, ἢ τᾶν ἐντὸς ἣ τᾶν ἐκτὸς Πελοποννάσω, 79, 4. 
Maire περὶ ὅρων aire περὶ ἄλλον τινός, διακριθῆμεν. at δέ τις τῶν ξυμμάχων 
Wardris πόλει ἐρίζοι, ἐς πόλιν ἐλθεῖν, dvrwa ἴσαν ἀμφοῖν ταῖς πολίεσσι δοκοίη. 
“ar-ois δὲ ἔταις καττὰ πάτρια δικάζεσθαι. 

The difference between the two clauses αἱ δέ τινι... αἱ δέ τις lies 

<2) in the words ἦ ἀμφίλογα and ἐρίζοι, the one denoting a mere 
<lifference of opinion, the other a downright quarrel; 4) in the 
wse of the subjunctive and optative moods respectively, the one 
denoting the nearer, the other the more remote alternative :—‘ if 
there be a difference of opinion, it shall be determined’ (i.e. by the 
cities themselves), ‘and if the difference become a quarrel, it shall 
be referred to arbitration.’ 

τοῖς érais, dative after the passive δικάζεσθαι, which appears to be 

here used impersonally. 


79. 4. 


80. I. 


80. 3. 


328 THUCYDIDES. 


ἔται are private citizens (πολῖται, δημόται, Hesychius); this meanings τῷ 
of the word is confirmed by a very ancient inscription at Olympia_a==—— 
recording a treaty between the Eleans and the Heraeans, Boeckhaf “αὖ 
C. I. G. vol. i. no. 11. ὃ 4; Newton, Essays, p. 104, aire éras oie a παῖ 
τελέστα aire δᾶμος ἐντί, 

The meaning of the clause is, either x) that citizens of «Δ. ἘἘΈΞ <=> —™ 
state shall be judged by their own laws in their own state: thie = τ] 
provision would protect those states over which a sort of quasi- ===—* 
sovereignty had been claimed, as by Elis over Lepreum, by Argose <&—" = 
over Epidaurus, by Mantinea over some lesser Arcadian towns: ΟΕ << 
2) ‘justice shall be administered among citizens of the same οἰϊμκῦδη -Β ai 
according to their ancestral customs,’ i.e. whether oligarchy onm=e= « Ὁ] 
democracy is in the ascendant, in all judicial matters the weakex>——™ =" 
party shall be protected. Or 3) applying the clause to disputess 2555 
between citizens of two different cities, ‘they are to be determined,” τ 
either a) ‘according to general Hellenic law,’ or 4) ‘according to 
ancient agreement between the two cities in question.’ There 
would be special need for such a provision in the case mentioned 
under 1). 


al μὲν σπονδαὶ καὶ ἡ ξυμμαχία αὕτη ἐγεγένητο καὶ ὁπόσα ἀλλήλων» 
πολέμῳ ἣ εἴ τι ἄλλο εἶχον, διελύσαντο. | 

εἶχον is taken in two senses. Whatever were the places belong- 
ing to one another which they had gained by war (εἶχον) they 
restored, and any other complaint which they had to bring (εΐχον), 
they settled with one another. διελύσαντο in strictness belongs 
only to εἴ τι ἄλλο εἶχον: some word such as ἀπέδοσαν having to 
be supplied with ὅποσα πολέμῳ εἶχον. 


ὁ δὲ ἀφικόμενος καὶ ἀγῶνά τινα πρόφασιν γυμνικὸν ἔξω τοῦ φρουρίου ποιή- 
σας, ὡς ἐξῆλθε τὸ ἄλλο φρουρικόν, ἀπέκλῃσε τὰς πύλας, καὶ ὕστερον ᾿Ἐπιδαυρ- 
ious ἀνανεωσάμενοι τὰς σπονδὰς αὐτοὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀπέδοσαν τὸ τείχισμα. 

πρόφασιν, 5011. an excuse to induce the allies to go out. De- 
mosthenes seems to have acted partly from bravado, partly because 
he preferred to give up the fortress to the Epidaurians, rather than 
leave it in the possession of the confederate troops, which included 
those of Argos, now in alliance with Sparta. By the terms of the 


83. 4. 


84. 1. 


86. 


430 THUCYDIDES. 


πόλισμα κεῖται : cp. also viii. 96 med. εἰ of πολέμιοι τολμήσουσι νενικη- 
κότες εὐθὺς σφῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ ἔρημον ὄντα νεῶν πλεῖν. 

Nothing is known of the expedition in which Perdiccas deserted 
the Athenians, except what may be gathered from this passage. 
The word ἀπάραντος, ‘having quitted’ some place where he ought 
to have remained in order to fulfil the terms of his alliance, seems 


to imply that Perdiccas failed in an engagement to meet the Athe- 


nians, who must therefore be supposed to have actually started 
from Athens, perhaps even to have arrived in Thrace, and not to 
have behaved as they had done twelve years before to Sitalces, 
when they failed in sending an expedition to join him, ti. 101 init. 

For a possible trace of the employment of Nicias during this 
year see Inscription quoted in the Appendix. 


καὶ ἐπὶ Μῆλον τὴν νῆσον ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐστράτευσαν. 

An attempt had been made by Nicias to reduce Melos in the 
summer of 426. The attempt according to Thucydides (iii. 91 
init.) was unsuccessful. Yet in the tribute list of the following year, 
425, we find the Melians assessed at fifteen talents, the same sum 
with the Naxians, Andrians, and Eretrians. See Koéhler, Geschichte 
des Delisch-Attischen Bundes, pp. 70, 146, 148. It is difficult to 
reconcile these two statements, unless we suppose that previously 
to the conquest of Melos an assessment was made of the revenue 
which the Athenians intended to take from it. 

In the same list the Dorian island of Thera is rated at five talents. 
Thucydides tells us that Melos and Thera were the only Cyclades 
not subject to Athens at the beginning of the war (ii. 9 fin.), but 
he nowhere mentions the conquest or submission of Thera. (Cp. 
Kirchhoff, Tributpflichtigkeit der Ath. Kleruchen, p. 11. Abhandl. 
der Berl. Acad. 1873.) : 


ἡ μὲν ἐπιείκεια τοῦ διδάσκειν καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν ἀλλήλους οὐ ψέγεται, ra 
δὲ τοῦ πολέμου παρόντα ἤδη καὶ οὐ μέλλοντα διαφέροντα αὑτοῦ φαίνεται. 
ὁρῶμεν γὰρ αὐτούς τε κριτὰς ἥκοντας ὑμᾶς τῶν λεχθησομένων, καὶ τὴν 
τελευτὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς περιγενομένοις μὲν τῷ δικαίῳ, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ 
μὴ ἐνδοῦσι, πόλεμον ἡμῖν φέρουσαν, πεισθεῖσι δὲ δουλείαν. 

διαφέροντα αὐτοῦ, τὴν τελευτὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, SCil. τοῦ διδάσκειν καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν 
ἀλλήλους. 


NOTES, BOOK V. 331 


οὐθ᾽ Spas ἀξιοῦμεν... οἴεσθαι πείσειν, ra δυνατὰ δ᾽ ἐξ ὧν ἑκάτεροι 89. 
ἀληθῶς φρονοῦμεν διαπράσσεσθαι, ἐπισταμένους πρὸς εἰδότας ὅτι δίκαια 
μὲν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἀνάγκης κρίνεται, δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ 
προὔχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν. 

διαπράσσεσθαι, though grammatically joined with ὑμᾶς, derives 

2 new subject from ἑκάτεροι, not ‘you’ only, but ‘you and we,’ 
Cp. ἐπισταμένους πρὸς εἰδότας. 
δίκαια κρίνεται. Thése words seem to mean that things are only 
¥xxreasured by the rule of justice, ceferis paribus ; but whether the 
<rnmphasis is 1) on δίκαια, or 2) ON κρίνεται, is uncertain: whether 
t¥nxe meaning is 1) ‘things are regarded under the aspect of justice,’ 
Ἂς e. determined to be just or unjust,—or 2) ‘justice is estimated,’ 
Ἃς e. justice enters into the decision,—only when the pressure of 
©-ecessity is equal: κρίνεται is nearly equivalent to νομέζεται. 


ἡ μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν ye, χρήσιμον (ἀνάγκη γάρ, ἐπειδὴ ὑμεῖς οὕτω mapa 90. 
- ὁ δίκαιον τὸ ξυμφέρον λέγειν ὑπέθεσθε,) μὴ καταλύειν ὑμᾶς τὸ κοινὸν 
“Ὡς γαθόν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀεὶ ἐν κινδύνῳ γιγνομένῳ εἶναι τὰ εἰκότα [καὶ] δίκαια, 
acai τι καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς πείσοντά τινα ὠφεληθῆναι. 

7 μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν γε is supported against ἦ μὲν δή by some good 

MSS. and by the canon of the ‘ more difficult reading.’ The MS. 
<orrection ἡμεῖς, adopted by Bekker, is unnecessary, and is rendered 
Xess probable by the occurrence of the same word ἡμεῖς at the begin- 
ming of the preceding and following chapters. The best MSS. 
read τὰ εἰκότα δίκαια without καί. According to either reading the 
sense is probably the same, δίκαια being the predicate. If καί be 
taken as the simple copula, ‘ that they should have what is equit- 
able and just,’ the parallelism of the words with the following 
clause καί τι καὶ ἐντός κιτιλ. is lost. 

The reading πείσοντα has been doubted. It may be easily altered 
with two bad MSS. (Ar. Chr.) into πείσαντα. But the alteration 
is unnecessary. The future may express the consciousness of the 
Melians that they were certain to fall short of the strict rule laid 
down by the Athenians, ὠφεληθῆναι may refer by anticipation to 
the advantage which the weaker party may fairly claim when the 
time comes for them to advance their plea: ‘although he may be 
destined to fail in making out a strict case, he should be profited.’ 


332 THUCYDIDES. 


90. Arnold argues against taking δίκαια as the predicate, that the 
Athenians have not denied the justice of the Melian plea—they 
have only said that justice has nothing to do with the present 
question ; and if so, how could the Melians plead with advantage 
that strict justice ought not to be enforced? But the true point 
of the passage is that justice, which is interpreted to mean the 
non-enforcement of strict justice, is expedient, both for the Athe- 
nians and the Melians. The Athenians say to the Melians, ‘Do 
not argue on grounds of justice, confine yourselves to expediency.’ 
The Melians reply, ‘ Well then, adopting your own language, we 
will convert our argument from justice into an argument from ex- 
pediency : and we say that it is expedient both for us and you that 
you should remit something of the strict claim of justice.’ 

Yet it is also true that the Melians, while trying to accommo- 
date themselves to the Athenian point of view, fall back several 
times in the course of their argument into an assertion of the 
claims of right against might. 


90. καὶ πρὸς ὑμῶν οὐχ ἧσσον τοῦτο, ὅσῳ καὶ ἐπὶ μεγίστῃ τιμωρίᾳ σφα- 
λέντες ἂν τοῖς ἄλλοις παράδειγμα γένοισθε. 

1)" eri=‘on condition of,’ ‘ you cannot fall without incurring 
the heaviest vengeance, and becoming an example to mankind.’ 

Or 2), we may take παράδειγμα as referring to the precedent 
which the Athenians would afford to others by their treatment of 
the Melians, and ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ as meaning ‘for the infliction of 
punishment.’ ‘And your own conduct will afford a precedent 
which will justify others in inflicting the heaviest vengeance upon 
you when you fall’ (σφαλέντες), or ‘when your turn comes.’ But 
the intransitive παράδειγμα γένοισθε is weak if taken in this sense. 


91. 1. οὐ yap of ἄρχοντες ἄλλων, ὥσπερ καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, οὗτοι δεινοὶ τοῖς 
γικηθεῖσιν, (ἔστι δὲ οὐ πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους ἡμῖν ὁ ἀγών) κιτιλ. 

Probably an anticipation on the part of Thucydides of the actual 

event. Cp. Xen. Hell. it. 2. 19, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἧκον, ἐκκλησίαν ἐποίησαν, ἐν 

ἡ ἀντέλεγον Κορίνθιοι καὶ Θηβαῖοι μάλιστα, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, 

μὴ σπένδεσθαι ᾿Αθηναίοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξαιρεῖν. (20) Λακεδαιμύνιοι δὲ οὐκ ἔφασαν 


πόλιν “Ἑλληνίδα ἀνδραποδιεῖν, μέγα ἀγαθὸν εἰργασμένην ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις 


NOTES, BOOK V. 333 


κινδύνοις γενομένοις τῇ Ἑλλάδι. For the words which follow see note 91. f. 
on English text. 


᾿ ἣν of ὑπήκοοί wou τῶν ἀρξάντων αὐτοὶ ἐπιθέμενοι κρατήσωσι. 91. 1. 
αὐτοί is emphatic: either 1)* ‘if they too’ (who might be least 
expected to do so), or 2) ‘ if they themselves without the help of 
others turn upon them.’ πού, indef., either 1)* ‘ perchance,’ or 2) 
‘our subject states anywhere.’ 


ov yap τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς βλάπτει ἡ ἔχθρα ὑμῶν, ὅσον ἡ φιλία μὲν 96. 
ἀσθενείας, τὸ δὲ μῖσος δυνάμεως παράδειγμα τοῖς ἀρχομένοις δηλούμενον. 

This is a condensed sentence in which the reason of the state- 
ment is included in the statement itself, and the reason for both 
clauses is included in the second. It would have run more easily 
in two sentences, ὅσον ἡ φιλία---ἡ μὲν yap φιλία ἀσθενείας x.7.d. 

With ἡ φιλία supply ἀσθενείας παράδειγμα ὃν βλάπτει, with τὸ μῖσος, 
παράδειγμά ἐστι. 


σκοποῦσι δ᾽ ὑμῶν οὕτως οἱ ὑπήκοοι τὸ εἰκός, ὥστε τούς τε μὴ προσήκ- 98. 
ovras, καὶ ὅσοι ἄποικοι ὄντες οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀποστάντες τινὲς κεχείρωνται, 
ἐς τὸ αὐτὸ τιθέασιν ; 

The verb κεχείρωνται does not apply strictly to ἄποικοι, but only 
to τινές, and under the influence of ἀποστάντες is used instead of 
a more general verb, such as ἄρχονται. 

The Melians reply ‘that the relations of great and small states 
vary greatly, and the rule which applies to them in different cases 
varies also. The small state may be wholly unconnected with the 
larger ; or it may be a revolted subject.’ 


Gore ἔξω καὶ τοῦ πλεόνων ἄρξαι καὶ τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἡμῖν διὰ τὸ κατα- 97, 
στραφῆναι ἂν παράσχοιτε, ἄλλως τε καὶ νησιῶται ναυκρατόρων, καὶ ἀσθενέ- 
στεροι ἑτέρων ὄντες͵ εἰ μὴ περιγένοισθε, 

ναυκρατόρων is governed by περιγένοισθε in the sense of ‘ survive 
in spite of us,’ nearly equivalent to ‘if you are not subdued by us.’ 
The verb has been used in the same sense just above, κατὰ δύναμιν 
δὲ τοὺς μὲν περιγίγνεσθαι «x.r.d., but here takes a genitive by associa- 
tion with its other meaning ‘ overcome.’ 

The Athenians argue that ‘the impression created by the inde- 


97. 


98. 


98. 


99. 


434 THUCYDIDES. 


pendence of the Melians will be all the more dangerous to Athe- 
nian interests, just because they are insignificant islanders.’ 


dv δ᾽ ἐκείνῳ οὐ νομίζετε ἀσφάλειαν ; δεῖ yap αὖ καὶ ἐνταῦθα, ὥσπερ 
ὑμεῖς τῶν δικαίων λόγων ἡμᾶς ἐκβιβάσαντες τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ξυμφόρῳ ὑπα- 
κούειν πείθετε, καὶ ἡμᾶς τὸ ἡμῖν χρήσιμον διδάσκοντας, εἶ τυγχάνει καὶ 
ὑμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ ξυμβαῖνον, πειρᾶσθαι πείθειν. ὅσοι γὰρ νῦν μηδετέροις ξυμ- 
μαχοῦσι, πῶς οὐ πολεμώσεσθε αὐτούς, ὅταν ἐς τάδε βλέψαντες ἡγήσωνταί 
ποτε ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ σφᾶς ἥξειν ; ᾿ 

ἐν δὲ ἐκείνῳ, either 1) ‘in the considerations just laid before you 
(cc. 94, 96), implying that you should allow states with which 
you have no concern to be independent;’ or 2) ‘in not making 
enemies of neutrals,’ the idea to which ἐν ἐκεζῳ refers being 
gathered from ὅσοι γάρ x.r.. which follows. 

ἀσφάλειαν, ‘a security, or rather the avoidance of a danger, 
which is likewise indicated in ὅσοι γάρ κτλ. 

ἐκβιβάσαντες. The authority of several of the best MSS. which 
read ἐκβιάσαντες (in this sense a late word) is outweighed by the 
idiomatic force and appropriateness of ἐκβιβάσαντες, as in vi. 64 
init. εἰ ἐκ τῶν νεῶν πρὸς mapecxevacpevous ἐκβιβάζοιεν, where there is 
the same difference of reading. 


κἀν τούτῳ τί ἄλλο ἣ τοὺς μὲν ὑπάρχοντας πολεμίους peyaduvere, Tous δὲ 
μηδὲ μελλήσοντας γενέσθαι ἄκοντας ἐπάγεσθε ; 

μελλήσοντας, the aor. μελλήσαντας, ‘who were not even thinking 
of being your enemies,’ would be easier; but the future tense 
harmonizes better with the incomplete action expressed by the 
present, ἐπάγεσθε, and is more forcible, ‘you are tending to make 
enemies of those who are never even about to think of being 
your enemies,’ 1. 6. who are never even likely to be your enemies 
(unless you make them). 


ob yap νομίζομεν ἡμῖν τούτους δεινοτέρους, ὅσοι ἠπειρῶταί που ὄντες τῷ 
ἐλευθέρῳ πολλὴν τὴν διαμέλλησιν τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς φυλακῆς ποιήσονται, ἀλλὰ 
τοὺς νησιώτας τέ που ἀνάρκτους, ὥσπερ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τοὺς ἤδη τῆς ἀρχῆς τῷ 
ἀναγκαίῳ παροξυνομένους. 

τοὺς νησιώτας τε... καὶ τοὺς ἤδη κιτιλ. τέ ZOeS With the whole clause, 


NOTES, BOOK Ρ. 335 


not with νησιώτας only. For the distinction implied in the latter 99. 
part of the sentence is not between islanders and inhabitants of 
the mainland, but between ἀνάρκτους and τοὺς ἤδη τῆς ἀρχῆς τῷ 
ἀναγκαίῳ παροξυνομένους, between the independent islanders, who were 
always expecting to be subjugated, and the discontented subjects 

of Athens, whether islanders or inhabitants of the mainland. For 
the last class cp. vi. 10 fin. εἰ Χαλκιδῆς ye of ἐπὶ Θράκης ἔτη τοσαῦτα 
ἀφεστῶτες ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔτι ἀχείρωτοί εἰσι, καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς κατὰ τὰς ἠπείρους 
ἐνδοιαστῶς ἀκροῶνται. 


οὗ γὰρ περὶ ἀνδραγαθίας ὁ ἀγὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου ὑμῖν μὴ αἰσχύνην ὀφλεῖν, 101. 
περὶ δὲ σωτηρίας μᾶλλον 4 βουλὴ πρὸς τοὺς κρείσσονας πολλῷ μὴ ἀνθ- 
ίστασθαι. 

περὶ ἀνδραγαθίας and ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσον both follow ὁ ἀγών, περὶ ἀνδραγα- 
θίας being slightly the more emphatic. ‘For you are not fighting 
to show vour courage, on equal terms, in order to avoid disgrace, 
but you are advising for your preservation, and that you may not 
have to resist a greatly superior power.’ 

μὴ ἀνθίστασθαι is either 1)* the subject matter, or 2) the purpose 
or object of the deliberation: 1)* ‘whether you shall abstain from 
resistance, 2) ‘that you may abstain from resistance.’ The some- 
what unnatural construction of the infinitive with ἡ βουλή is sup- 
ported by the more natural construction of the infinitive in the 
corresponding clause, μὴ αἰσχύνην ὀφλεῖν, with ὁ ἀγών. 


ἐλπὶς δὲ κινδύνῳ παραμύθιον οὖσα τοὺς μὲν ἀπὸ περιουσίας χρωμένους 108. 1, 
αὐτῇ, κἂν βλάψῃ, οὐ καθεῖλε" τοῖς δὲ ἐς ἅπαν τὸ ὑπάρχον ἀναῤῥιπτοῦσι 
(δάπανος γὰρ φύσει) ἅμα τε γιγνώσκεται σφαλέντων, καὶ ἐν ὅτῳ ἔτι φυλά- 
ξεταί τις αὐτὴν γνωρισθεῖσαν, οὐκ ἐλλείπει. ὃ ὑμεῖς, ἀσθενεῖς τε καὶ ἐπὶ 
ῥοπῆς μιᾶς ὄντες, μὴ βούλεσθε παθεῖν. 

ἀπὸ περιουσίας, ‘ out of their abundance,’ i.e. having something 
else to depend upon, (cp. Dem. De Cor. (xviii.) 3, οὗτος δ᾽ ἐκ περιου- 
σίας μου κατηγορεῖ, ‘my accuser can afford to lose’). 

τοῖς δ᾽ ἐς ἅπαν κιτιλ, ἀναῤῥιπτοῦσι is used absolutely, ‘to those who 
make their throw to the extent of all they have.’ 

ἐλλείπει means either 1)* ‘does not fail so long as he might 
recognise and guard against her,’ or 2) ‘leaves him nothing in 


. which he can guard against her now that she is recogniseu, -.. 
leaves him nothing to protect against her. For this active use «-: 
λείπω cp. Eur. El. 608,— 

σὺ δ᾽, ἐκ βαθρῶν γὰρ πᾶς ἀνήρησαι φίλοις 

οὐδ᾽ ἔλλέλοιπας ἐλπίδ᾽... 
According to 1)* ἅμα is taken closely with σφαλέντων, ‘in a Ἰπαδες 
moment of their fall;’ and φυλάξεται γνωρισθεῖσαντ- γνωρίσει ne! 
φυλάξεταί τις : according to 2) the words ἅμα re γιγνώσκεται answee— Ὡ 
to καὶ οὐκ ἐλλείπει following, and γνωρισθεῖσαντ-ἰ now that she i” 
known,’ +é—xkai according to τ)" may be translated ‘but;’ or rat 
Thucydides coordinates two clauses which are really opposed, the 
second going back to an earlier period of time than the first. 

ὃ ὑμεῖς xr. 8, though in form a simple relative, is in sense 

strongly adversative. 


108. 2. ἐπειδὰν πιεζομένους αὐτοὺς ἐπιλίπωσιν al φανεραὶ ἐλπίδες, ἐπὶ τὰς 
ἀφανεῖς καθίστανται, μαντικήν τε καὶ χρησμοὺς καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα pet’ ἐλπίδων 
λυμαίνεται. 

καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα per’ ἐλπίδων Ξε καὶ ὅσαι τοιαῦται ἐλπίδες. The repeti- 
tion οἵ ἐλπίδες, in the form per’ ἐλπίδων, is an awkward evasion of 
tautology. 


104, ὅμως δὲ πιστεύομεν τῇ μὲν τύχῃ ἐκ τοῦ θείου μὴ ἐλασσώσεσθαι, ὅτι 
ὅσιοι πρὸς οὐ δικαίους ἱστάμεθα κιτιλλ. 

«In respect of fortune, we trust that Heaven will not allow us to 
fall behind you.’ τῇ μὲν τύχῃ is to be taken both with πιστεύομεν, 
and with ἐλασσώσεσθαι. Here, as in v. 112 med. τῇ μέχρε τοῦδε 
σωζούσῃ τύχῃ ἐκ τοῦ θείου αὐτὴν... πιστεύοντες, τύχη is connected with 
τὸ θεῖον, a3 though in the uncertainty of fortune, on which Thucy- 
dides loves to dwell, the operation of the divine power might 
still be recognised. 


105. τ. τῆς μὲν τοίνυν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐμενείας οὐδ᾽ ἡμεῖς οἰόμεθα λελείψεσθαι. 
‘In good-will in regard of heaven, neither do we think that 
we shall be behind you,’ is said for ‘in regard of heaven, neither 
do we think that we shall be behind you in the good-will of 
heaven.” 


NOTES, BOOK V. 337 


εἰ δες -υ- es καὶ ὑμᾶς ἂν καὶ ἄλλους, ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ δυνάμει ἡμῖν γενομένους, 108. 2. 
ρῶν» τ΄ καὶ -- ἂν αὐτό. 
S E> wrras ἂν αὐτό, scil. ἄρχοντας ἂν οὗ ἂν κρατῶσι. 


ἡ μια Ss δὲ κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἤδη καὶ μάλιστα πιστεύομεν τῷ ξυμφέροντι 106. 
wrere Μηλίους ἀποίκους ὄντας μὴ βουλήσεσθαι προδόντας τοῖς μὲν 
Pace σῶν ᾿Ἑλλήνων ἀπίστους καταστῆναι, τοῖς δὲ πολεμίοις ὠφελίμους. 

δου, cither, ‘now you have come to the very point,’ or, ‘we already, 
fOr this very reason, most especially trust them,’ i.e. we are already 

‘Ware, without being told it, that they will follow their interest. 

καὶ ©mphasizes μάλιστα. τῷ ξυμφέροντι αὐτῶν is either 1) an epexe- 
8°Sis of κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο: or 2) we may separate κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο from 
τῷ updépowre αὐτῶν, and supply the antecedent from the previous 
chapter, ‘we for this very reason,’ i.e. because they are so selfish, 
*COnfide in the interest of the Lacedaemonians.’ Others 3) con- 
DECt τῷ ξυμφέροντι αὐτῶν with μὴ βουλήσεσθαι, ‘we trust that by 
r€ason of their interest they will not be willing,’ etc. But when 
there is a doubt in which of two constructions a word is to be 
taken, the nearer and more natural is to be preferred. We must 
therefore conclude that τῷ ξυμφέροντι follows πιστεύομεν. 

The next words, Μηλίους ἀποίκους ὄντας κιτιλ., may be taken either 
with πιστεύομεν or with rp ξυμφέροντι αὐτῶν. Either 1), ‘we believe 
that they will not give up their colonists the Melians,’ or 2)* ,‘we rely 
upon their sense of interest which will forbid them to give up,’ etc. 


οὕκουν οἴεσθε τὸ ξυμφέρον μὲν per’ ἀσφαλείας εἶναι, rd δὲ δίκαιον καὶ 107. 
καλὸν μετὰ κινδύνου δρᾶσαι. 

δρᾶσαι is the reading of nearly all the MSS.; supply τινά, The 
easier reading δρᾶσθαι, found in M”, a MS. in the British Museum 
of uncertain value, is unnecessary. 


ὅσῳ πρὸς μὲν τὰ ἔργα τῆς Πελοποννήσου ἐγγὺς κείμεθα, τῆς δὲ γνώμης 108. 
τῷ ξυγγενεῖ πιστότεροι ἑτέρων ἐσμέν. 

πρὸς τὰ ἔργα, ‘for military action,’ whether 1)* of the Melians on 
the mainland, or 2) of the Peloponnesians on the island, or 3) of 
both. τῆς γνώμης, either 1) genitive of relation with πιστότεροι ; or 


2) with τῷ ξυγγενεῖ, ‘more trustworthy because our feelings are 
those of Dorians toward Dorians.’ 
VOL. 11. Ζ 


110. 1. 


110. 2. 


li. 3. 


338 THUCYDIDES. 


οἱ δὲ καὶ ἄλλους ἂν ἔχοιεν πέμψαι. 
I. 6, the Corinthians or other naval allies of Lacedaemon, ii. 9 med, 


καὶ εἰ τοῦδε σφάλλοιντο, τράποιντ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἐς Thy γῆν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς. 
λοιποὺς τῶν ξυμμάχων, ὅσους μὴ Βρασίδας ἐπῆλθε" καὶ οὐ περὶ τῆς μὴ 
προσηκούσης μᾶλλον ἣ τῆς οἰκειοτέρας ξυμμαχίδος τε καὶ γῆς ὁ πόνος 
ὑμῖν ἔσται. 

The opposition of γῆ to ξυμμαχίς, though in itself harsh, is made 
clearer by the correspondence of the words with the foregoing 
clause, ἐς τὴν γῆν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς τῶν ξυμμάχων. ‘But about 
the land of your allies and your own territory, which are both far 
nearer to you.’ 


τούτων μὲν καὶ πεπειραμένοις ἄν re γένοιτο καὶ ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐκ dy- 
επιστήμοσιν, ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ μιᾶς πώποτε πολιορκίας ᾿Αθηναῖοι 3: ἄλλων φόβον 
ἀπεχώρησαν. | 

‘Yes, and some of these things may come to pass in your case 
too, and if you should ever have experience of them, then you will 
know too well that the Athenians have never yet raised a siege 
through fear of others,’ i.e. because they were attacked in some 
other quarter, as by the Corinthians during the blockade of Aegina 
(i. 105 med.), and by the Lacedaemonians during the blockade of 
Potidaea (ii. 70. init.), and Mitylene (iii. 16 init.). The meaning 
of the sentence is obscured by the awkward juxtaposition of πεπει- 
papevors and οὐκ ἀνεπιστήμοσιν, Which are not really parallel in time, 
the one referring to the coming of the assistance for which the 
Melians looked, the other to their subsequent experience of the 
endurance and persistency of the Athenians. The irony of ἂν 
γένοιτο increases the obscurity ; ἄν affecting the meaning of πεπειρα- 
μένοις as well as Of yevorro, καί emphasizes πεπειραμένοις. οὐκ ἀνεπι- 
στήμοσινΞεεὖ εἰδόσιν. τούτων refers to the invasion of Attica, or to the 
stirring up of a revolt among the allies, with which the Athenians 
have just been threatened by the Melians. The perfect participle, 
πεπειραμένοις, implies that the Melians were not to expect this assist- 
ance from Lacedaemon until they had had experience of it. 


? 4 A > » 4 > “ ᾽ “- a ’ a 
ov yap δὴ ἐπί ye τὴν ἐν τοῖς αἰσχροῖς καὶ προὔπτοις κινδύνοις πλεῖστα 


διαφθείρουσαν ἀνθρώπους αἰσχύνην τρέψεσθε. 


NOTES, BOOK γ΄ 339 


Compare i. 122 fin. οὐ yap δὴ πεφενγότες ταῦτα ἐπὶ τὴν πλείστους δὴ 11}. 3. 
βλάψασαν καταφρόνησιν κεχωρήκατε. 


πολλοῖς γὰρ προορωμένοις ἔτι͵ ἐς οἷα φέρονται, τὸ αἰσχρὸν καλούμενον 111. 3. 
ὀνόματος ἐπαγωγοῦ δυνάμει ἐπεσπάσατο, ἡσσηθεῖσι τοῦ ῥήματος, ἔργῳ 
ξυμφοραῖς ἀνηκέστοις ἑκόντας περιπεσεῖν. 

πολλοῖς, ἡσσηθεῖσι, datives after ἐπεσπάσατο. ἐπεσπάσατο, 501]. τὸ 
περιπεσεῖν ἑκόντας, lit. ‘has drawn down upon them a fall ἰπίο- 
irremediable calamity which they bring upon themselves.’ 


σκοπεῖτε οὖν καὶ μεταστάντων ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐνθυμεῖσθε πολλάκις, ore περὶ 111. 5. 
πατρίδος βουλεύεσθε, ἣν μιᾶς τέρεν καὶ ἐς μίαν βουλὴν τυχοῦσάν τε καὶ 

μὴ κατορθώσασαν ἔσται. 

Although the grammar of the last words is desperate, the read- 
ing in the text is probably genuine. The comparatively slight 
variations of the MSS. are sufficiently accounted for by the difficulty 
of the passage. With ἔσται may be supplied βουλεύεσθαι from 
βουλεύεσθε. There is a confusion between two modes of expres- 
sion, ἣν μίαν καὶ és μίαν βουλὴν τυχοῦσάν re καὶ μὴ κατορθώσασαν ἔσται 
βουλεύεσθαι, and ἧς μιᾶς πέρι καὶ ἐς μίαν βουλὴν τυχούσης τε καὶ μὴ 
κατ dons ἔσται (ὑμῖν) βουλεύεσθαι. 

The city is considered, first, 48 that which deliberates ; secondly, 
as the subject of deliberation; ‘which is your only city, and 
which, whether saved or lost, at one conference only, will have 
an opportunity of deliberating.’ ἐς μίαν βουλήν may either be taken 
1) as above, after βουλεύεσθαι, or 2)* after τυχοῦσάν re κιτιλ., ‘ of 
which the ruin or salvation depends upon the result of your deli- 
beration.. The reading tore for ἔσται somewhat improves the 
grammar, but it rests on weak MS. authority, and coming at the 
end of the sentence enfeebles the sense. 


ἀλλὰ τῇ τε μέχρι τοῦδε σωζούσῃ τύχῃ ἐκ τοῦ θείου αὐτὴν καὶ τῇ ἀπὸ 112. 2. 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων τιμωρίᾳ πιστεύοντες πειρασόμεθα σώ- 
ζεσθαι. 

The desire to oppose the single idea ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων to ἐκ τοῦ 
Θείου has led to a formal distinction between ἀνθρώπων and Aaxe- 
δαιμονίων, ‘from men, and in particular from Lacedaemonians.’ 

Ζ 2 


8340 THUCYDIDES. 


113. καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ τύχῃ καὶ ἐλπίσι πλεῖστον δὴ παραβεβλημένοι 
καὶ πιστεύσαντες πλεῖστον καὶ σφαλήσεσθε. 

The dative cases are taken: after πιστεύσαντες, which is qualified 

by παραβεβλημένοι, ‘trusting, in the most reckless manner, the Lace- 

dacmonians and fortune and hope.’ For the hyperbaton cp. iii. 68 


init. αὖθις τὸ αὐτὸ ἕνα ἕκαστον παραγαγόντες καὶ ἐρωτῶντες. 


11δ. 4. ἐσενεγκάμενοι σῖτόν τε καὶ ὅσα πλεῖστα ἐδύναντο χρήσιμα. 
χρήμασιν, the reading of most MSS., gives no sense. χρήσιμα has 
therefore been restored out of one good (H.) and one inferior MS. 
(I). Cp. for the fate of the Melians, Aristoph. Birds, 186,— 
τοὺς δ᾽ αὖ θεοὺς ἀπολεῖτε λίμῳ Μηλίῳ, 
although nothing is said by Thucydides of their being compelleQuy, 
to surrender by famine. 


BOOK VI. 


Thucydides, like Herodotus, retains the spirit of the older 1. 
geographers and logographers, and at the beginning of his narrative 
of the Sicilian expedition describes Sicily as if it were an un- 
known country. That he may have borrowed from Antiochus of 
Syracuse is possible, but it is equally possible that his description 
is the result of his own travels or inquiries. The slight coincidences 
of language (see note on c. 3.1 infra) or statement which are 
found in the fragments of Antiochus (Miiller, i. p. 181), when com- 
pared with Thucydides, are by no means sufficient to support the . 
hypothesis first suggested by Niebuhr, and confidently maintained 
by later writers, that the account of Sicily in Thucydides is derived 
from his contemporary. 

The great apparent antiquity of these Sicilian colonies, and the 
precision with which the dates are given are remarkable. Yet we 
must consider that Thucydides is speaking of times which, in 
his own language (i. 21), have ‘ passed into the region of romance.’ 
We know nothing of the source whence he obtained his chronology, 
and cannot therefore determine whether it was the invention of a 
later age, or whether it had some real foundation in ancient and 
contemporary inscriptions, whether lists of magistrates, or docu- 
ments of any other kind. In Thucydides, as in Herodotus, we must . 
distinguish between the record of events which occurred in his 
own or in the preceding generation, and of those which he re- 
ceived by tradition from a distant antiquity. 

Σικελίας γὰρ περίπλους μέν ἐστιν ὁλκάδι οὐ πολλῷ τινι ἔλασσον ἣ ὀκτὼ 1, 2. 
ἡμερῶν, καὶ τοσαύτη οὖσα ἐν εἴκοσι σταδίων μάλιστα μέτρῳ τῆς θαλάσσης 
διείργεται͵ τὸ μὴ ἤπειρος εἶναι. 

Thucydides seems to think that there is a geographical incon- 
gruity in so large an island being separated from the mainland by 
50 narrow a channel. 


1. 2. 


2. 5. 


2.5. 


3. I. 


342 THUCYDIDES. 


τὸ μὴ ἤπειρος οὖσα is the reading of all the MSS. but one(H). οὖσα 
may certainly have crept in from τοσαύτη οὖσα in the preceding line. 
But it is not in itself indefensible ; cp. note on i. 2. 5. 


φκίσθη δὲ ὧδε τὸ ἀρχαῖον, καὶ τοσάδε ἔθνη ἔσχε τὰ ξύμπαντα. 

ὧδε has no MS. authority. There are numerous various readings, 
ἧδε, ἥδε, ἦδε, ἤδη, ἤδη, and the mere variety of them seems to show a 
corruption of the text. Most of them give no sense; #ée, which has 
the greatest MS. authority, a poor one, and ἤδη, which has less 
authority, not a very good one. Upon the whole it seems better to 
accept the emendation ὧδε. 

The subject of ἔσχε may be either τοσάδε ἔθνη (ἔσχε τὴν Σικελίαν), 
or better ἡ Σικελία, the subject of the preceding verb φκίσθη. 


τούς re Σικανοὺς κρατοῦντες μάχῃ ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ καὶ 
ἑσπέρια αὐτῆς. 

ἀπέστειλαν, the reading of the MSS., has been altered by Bekker 
intO ἀνέστειλαν, On the ground that the meaning of the word is un- 
suited to this passage. But it is much more likely that ἀπέστειλαν 
should be used with a different shade of meaning, ‘send 
them off,’ or ‘drive them,’ instead of simply ‘send them,’ (cp. iii. 
89 fin. αἵτιον δ᾽ ἔγωγε νομίζω τοῦ τοιούτου, ἦ ἰσχυρότατος ὁ σεισμὸς 
ἐγένετο, κατὰ τοῦτο ἀποστέλλειν τε τὴν θάλασσαν «.r.d.), than that all the 
MSS. should agree by mistake in a word which is employed in ἃ 
somewhat unfamiliar sense. 


καὶ Ta κράτιστα τῆς γῆς ᾧκησαν ἔχοντες, ἐπεὶ διέβησαν, ἔτη ἐγγὺς τρια- 
κόσια, πρὶν Ἕλληνας ἐς Σικελίαν ἐλθεῖν. 


ἔχοντες, 801]. τὰ κράτιστα τῆς γῆς. €rn τριακόσια, accusative of 
duration. 


᾿Απόλλωνος ἀρχηγέτου βωμόν, ὅστις νῦν ἔξω τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν, ἱδρύσαντω»-ς 
ὅστις for ὅς appears to be a remnant of poetical language whiclili? 
is occasionally found, as here, in prose without difference ςΞ- 
meaning. It is common in Herodotus (Stein on iv. 8), cp. i. 16a7 << 


ἐκτήσαντο πόλιν γῆς τῆς Οἰνωτρίης ταύτην ἥτις viv Ὑέλη καλέεται : ii. 151 
ἐν φρενὶ λαβόντες τό τε ποιηθὲν ἐκ Ψαμμητίχον καὶ τὸ χρηστήριον ὅ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 343 


ἐκέχρητό σφι: vi. 13, ὁ δὲ Αἰάκης, παρ᾽ ὅτευ τοὺς λόγους ἐδέκοντο of Σάμιοι, 8, 1," 
παῖς μὲν ἦν Συλοσῶντος τοῦ Αἰάκεος, κιτιλ. Cp. also Antiochus, Fragm. 8, 

τὴν γὴν ταύτην, ἥτις νῦν ᾿Ιταλία καλέεται, τὸ παλαιὸν εἶχον Οἰνωτροί. 
Hermann’s account of the use of ὅστις for ὅς as explanatory (Praef. 

ad Soph. O. T. p. xi) is inapplicable to many places in Herodotus, 

and is not suited to this passage. Neither can the word be here 
defended as expressing ‘ purpose’ or ‘ general character ;’ cp. note 

on iii. 16. 3; viii. 92. 6. 


οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι ἐκ τῆς Θάψου ἀναστάντες, Ὕβλωνος βασιλέως Σικελοῦ mpo- 4, 1. 
δόντος τὴν χώραν καὶ καθηγησαμένου, Μεγαρέας ᾧκισαν τοὺς Ὑβλαίους 
κληθέντας. 

ἀναστάντες, either 1)* ‘being driven out’ from Thapsus, or 2) 
‘breaking up their settlement.’ The former is the more common 
meaning, and occurs a few lines below, but the latter is justified by 
another use of the word, ‘ breaking up an encampment,’ and is in 
better keeping with the context, for nothing is said of the circum- 
stances under which the settlers left Thapsus; the only reason 
assigned for their quitting the place is that they were guided by 
Hybion to another. 

προδόντος τὴν χώραν, either 1) ‘giving up the country,’ i. 6. the 
territory of Thapsus, whether of his own choice, or because he 
was pushed out by his enemies; or 2)* betraying the country, 
i.e. the territory of Megara, to the Hellenic settlers, how or why is 
not said, 


πρὶν δὲ ἀναστῆναι, ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ἑκατὸν ἣ αὐτοὺς οἰκῆσαι, Πάμιλλον 4. 2. 
πέμψαντες ἐς Σελινοῦντα κτίζουσιν. 
αὐτούς, referring to the subject of the verb, is irregular. The 
irregularity is sufficiently defended here by the position of αὐτούς pre- 
Ceding the verb κτίζουσι to the subject of which it refers. 


μάλιστα δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐξώρμησαν ᾿Εγεσταίων τε πρέσβεις παρόντες x.r.A, 8. 2. 
Cp. note on i. 9. 3. ὃ 2. 


ὥστε τὴν γενομένην ἐπὶ Λάχητος καὶ τοῦ προτέρου πολέμου Λεοντίνων οἱ 6. 2. 
Ἢ Ἐγεσταῖοι ξυμμαχίαν ἀναμιμνήσκοντες τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους, ἐδέοντο σφίσι ναῦς 
ποέμψαντας ἐπαμῦναι. 


344 THUCYDIDES. 


6.2. Λεοντίνων is to be taken, not with πολέμου, but with ξυμμαχίαν. THEE “he 
Egestaeans reminded the Athenians that they had already interferamme=» ——ed 
in the affairs of Sicily, which was a reason for their interferimmmmm- -_ng 
again. It is nowhere stated that the Athenians had made === an 
alliance with the Egestaeans, previous to that of vi 8. Butthe wor- ———=aards 
τοὺς λοιποὺς ἔτι ξυμμάχους atrav,—perd τῶν ὑπολοίπων ἔτι ξυμμάχων͵ -------ὀ <a 
below probably include them, as well as the other Sicilian ΘΔ ΩΣ. tes 
mentioned as allies of the Leontines, and therefore of the Ath=———iliihe- 

-Nnians, in iii. 86 med. The Egestaeans naturally call themsely==—"<=asves 
allies of the Athenians, because they are willing to become so. 


7.2. ἐλθόντων δὲ ᾿Αθηναίων οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον ναυσὶ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξακοσῦ -εἅΝἙ-»ίοις 
ὁπλίταις, οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι μετὰ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, πανστρατιᾷ ἐξελθόντων, τοὺς στὸ 
᾿ορνεαῖς μίαν ἡμέραν ἐπολιόρκουν" ὑπὸ δὲ νύκτα, αὐλισαμένου τοῦ στραταπαιιαιι»»--εὖ- 
ματος ἄπωθεν, ἐκδιδράσκουσιν οἱ ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ορνεῶν. ᾿ 

Either the MSS. agree in a mistake, arising out of the δἰ ΒΑΡ 2/1 
ending of τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων which precedes, and we should read eb AA 
θόντες, or we must suppose that there is a rather abrupt change -™8° 
of construction. We may place a comma after pera τῶν ᾿Αθηναῖ[ 3. οἷον 
and ἐξελθόντων, and refer the latter word to both the Athenians assmsmsc—2nd 
Argives. This explanation is supported by v. 33 init. Aaxedasb—-—" λα 
...€oTparevoay... ἐς Nappacious, Μαντινέων ὑπηκόους ὄντας, κατὰ ord” 
ἐπικαλεσαμένων σφᾶς. Cp. also vii. 57. 11: vii. 76. 5, and notes. 

There is a reference to the bloodless capture of Orneae in ΙΝ. he 
Birds of Aristophanes (395-399), which was exhibited rather mas <<—* 
than a year later, in the spring of 414,— 

ὁ Κεραμεικὸς δέξεται va 
δημόσια γὰρ ἵνα ταφῶμεν 
φήσομεν πρὸς τοὺς στρατηγοὺς 
μαχομένω τοῖς πολεμίοισιν 


4 “- “ 
ἀποθανεῖν ἐν ’Opveais. 


8. 1. ἑξήκοντα τάλαντα ἀσήμου ἀργυρίον, ὡς ἐς ἑξήκοντα vais μηνὸς μισθόν. 
I. e. if the ships had a crew of 200 sailors, ἃ drachma a day, or 
double the usual pay. Cp. note on viii. 29, 2. 


e “~ ~ 
8. 2. ἔξευγκατοικίσαι δὲ καὶ Λεοντίνους, ἤν τι περιγίγνηται αὐτοῖς τοῦ πολέμου. 


Either 1)* ‘if they had any spare time or means from the war, 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 345 


lit. ‘if they had anything remaining over from the war ;’ or 2) ‘ if 8. 2. 
they gained any success in the war.’ But this latter proviso seems | 
hardly consistent with the sanguine temper which animated the 
Athenians at the time. 


ἐκκλησία αὖθις ἐγίγνετο, καθ᾽ ὅ τι χρὴ τὴν παρασκευὴν ταῖς ναυσὶ τάχιστα 8. 3. 
γίγνεσθαι. 
καθ᾽ 6r1=‘as to the manner in which.’ 


al ἡσυχαζόντων μὲν ὑμῶν ὀνόματι σπονδαὶ ἔσονται, οὕτω γὰρ ἐνθένδε τε 10. 2. 
ἄνδρες ἔπραξαν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων. 
Scil. Alcibiades, and the Lacedaemonian Ephors (ν. 36 init.). 


αὐτά--- τὰ περὶ ras σπονδάς. 


οἱ μὲν ἄντικρυς πολεμοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ Λακεδαιμονίους ἔτι ἡσυχάζειν 10. 8. 
δεχημέροις σπονδαῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ κατέχονται. 

οἱ μέν, scil. the Corinthians, v. 52 fin., 115 med. οἱ δέ, scil. the 
Boeotians, v. 26 med., and the Thracian Chalcidians, vi. 7 fin. 


Σικελιῶται δ᾽ ἄν pos δοκοῦσιν, ὥς ye viv ἔχουσι, καὶ ἔτι ἂν ἧσσον δεινοὶ 11, 2. 
μιν γενέσθαι, εἰ ἄρξειαν αὐτῶν Συρακόσιοι ὅπερ οἱ ᾿Εγεσταῖοι μάλιστα 
μᾶς ἐκφοβοῦσι. νῦν μὲν γὰρ κἂν ἔλθοιεν ἴσως Λακεδαιμονίων ἕκαστοι 83. 
χάριτι, ἐκείνως δ᾽ οὐκ εἰκὸς ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ ἀρχὴν στρατεῦσαι. 

δοκοῦσιν, ὥς γε νῦν ἔχουσι, scil. οὐ δεινοὶ εἶναι, supplied from the 

words which immediately follow, καὶ ἔτι ἂν ἧσσον δεινοὶ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι. 
‘In their present condition they are not dangerous,’ said, perhaps, 
with reference to the defensive policy adopted at the congress of 
Gela, iv. 65. Otherwise the sentence must be translated, ‘looking at 
the present state of Sicily, the Sicilians would be even less dangerous 
than they are now if they were subjugated by Syracuse.’ But the 
words νῦν μὲν yap... ἐκείνως δέ clearly show that ὥς ye νῦν ἔχουσι is 
opposed to εἰ ἄρξειαν «.r.A. 


ᾧ γὰρ ἂν τρόπῳ τὴν ἡμετέραν μετὰ Πελοποννησίων ἀφέλωνται, εἰκὸς 11. 3. 
ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν σφετέραν διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαιρεθῆναι. | 

ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν, i.e. by the Peloponnesians, διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ refers to ᾧ 
ἂν τρόπῳ, that is to say, ‘by combination.’ ‘ By whatever process they 
combining with the Peloponnesians deprive us of our empire, by 


12. 1. 


446 THUCYDIDES. 


. the same process may they expect their own to be overthrowm: —<«.<20, 


and by these same Peloponnesians combining with the Athenians πης 


Whatever dangers threaten the Athenian empire from the union ex» - of 
Sparta and Syracuse would equally threaten a Syracusan empime_a& <c— ire 
from the union of Sparta and Athens. The union of course = is 
in the one case voluntary, in the other involuntary: but the desir a= sire 
to make a point has led the speaker to overlook this distinction. --. 
ἡμᾶς δ᾽ ἂν οἱ ἐκεῖ “Ἕλληνες μάλιστα μὲν ἐκπεπληγμένοι εἶεν εἰ pm μὴ 


ἀφικοίμεθα κιτὰλ. 

‘We shall not frighten them by going to Sicily as the Ἐροβίδοιλπς. με: -“-λῃ 
would have us believe ; they will fear us most if we keep ἀνε ἘΚ δ’ —1¥) 
from them.’ 


χρὴ δὲ μὴ πρὸς ras τύχας τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπαίρεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὰς Savon ae πανοὶ 
κρατήσαντας θαρσεῖν. 

Arnold compares Livy ix. 6, ‘habere Samnites victoriam nc» <2 
praeclaram solum sed etiam perpetuam; cepisse enim eos nc» «<= 
Romam sicut ante Gallos, sed quod multo bellicosius fuerit Roms <= —_— 
nam virtutem ferociamque.’ 

For the contrast of διάνοια and τύχη cp. note on i. 70. 6. 


Di 
1 


ὅπως πόλιν Se ὀλιγαρχίας ἐπιβουλεύουσαν ὀξέως φυλαξώμεθα. - 
Nicias, who was himself suspected of sacrificing Athenia == = ™ ~ 
interests to Sparta, here strikes a note likely to elicit a response κα. “Ὁ 
from the demus: δι᾽ ὀλιγαρχίας, ‘a state contriving our ruin,’ eithe=> «3 τΣ 
1) ‘by setting up an oligarchy,’ or 2) ‘in the way of oligarchy,’ i. => 
by the influence of the Spartan oligarchy over the anstocraticas= 
party at Athens (Plato, Protag. 342 B, C, Aristoph. Birds, 1280 foll.). «. 
or 3)* simply “ oligarchically,’ ‘like an oligarchy ;’ δι᾽ ὀλιγαρχίας, likes 


_> | 
oe 
ak τς 
δι’ ὀργῆς. 

The first case would be illustrated by the Thirty, the second by= 
the Four Hundred. The third would be more general. 


~<A 


καὶ μεμνῆσθαι χρὴ ἡμᾶς ὅτι νεωστὶ ἀπὸ νόσον μεγάλης καὶ πολέμου 
βραχύ τι λελωφήκαμεν, Sore καὶ χρήμασι καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν ηὐξῆσθαι" καὶ 
ταῦτα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δίκαιον ἐνθάδε εἶναι ἀναλοῦν καὶ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἀνδρῶν φυγάδων 
τῶνδε ἐπικουρίας δεομένων. 

δίκαιον is joined with εἶναι, the infinitive being dependent on some 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 347 


&emeral idea such as νομίζειν contained in μεμνῆσθαι. The separa- 12 1. 
tion of the words gives force to ἐνθάδε. 

"The envoys are contemptuously called φυγάδες, because the 
I_eontines, with whose cause they identify their own (vi. 6 med.), 
had been expelled from their city. C. 19 init. shows that some 
T_eontines were present in the assembly. 


Oise τό re ψεύσασθαι καλῶς χρήσιμον, καὶ τῷ τοῦ πέλας κινδύνῳ, αὑτῶν 12, 1. 
ASyous μόνον παρασχομένους, ἣ κατορθώσαντας χάριν μὴ ἀξίαν εἰδέναι, ἣ πταί- 
7 as-z-is που τοὺς φίλους ξυναπολέσαι. 

_  #©aadés, successfully or plausibly; cp. οἷς κόσμος καλῶς τοῦτο δρᾷν, 
*- med: ἀπὸ τῶν λόγῳ κάλως ἐπιτιμησάντων, iii. 38 med. 
~ Whe MSS. are divided between αὐτούς and αὐτῶν. αὐτῶν or αὑτῶν, 
<>" themselves,’ or ‘of their own, is more euphonic. The force of 
Xf TF σιμὸν extends to χάριν μὴ ἀξίαν εἰδέναι, but is forgotten in the 
®Wemative ἢ wraisavras . . . ξυναπολέσαι. ξυναπολέσθαι, the MS. 


"=a ding, is too harsh. 


«-. εἴ τέ τις ἄρχειν ἄσμενος αἱρεθεὶς παραινεῖ ὑμῖν ἐκπλεῖν, τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μόνον 19. 2. 
~~ Sondy, ἄλλως τε καὶ νεώτερος ἔτι ὧν ἐς τὸ ἄρχειν, ὅπως θαυμασθῇ μὲν 
τῆς ἱπποτροφίας, διὰ δὲ πολυτέλειαν καὶ ὠφεληθῃ τι ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς, 
ὲ τούτῳ ἐμπαράσχητε τῷ τῆς πόλεως κινδύνῳ ἰδίᾳ ἔλλαμπρύνεσθαι. 
ἄλλως τε καί, the youth of Alcibiades increased his exultation at 
Rr olding acommand. The structure of the sentence is somewhat 
“AA isorderly, the sense apparently requiring this clause to be connected 
Nevith ἄρχειν ἄσμενος αἱρεθείς and not with τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μόνον σκοπῶν. 
ὅπως θαυμασθῇ μέν, the emphasis is on the second of the two 
<lauses, διὰ δὲ πολυτέλειαν κιτλ., ‘that he may be admired for his stud 
«f horses, and at the same time, since they are a great expense, 
may make a little gain out of his command.’ 
καὶ ὠφεληθῇ κιτὰλ, is anticipated in τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μόνον σκοπῶν. 


νομίσαε, εἰ ὀῤῥωδεῖς τὸ ἀναψηφίσαι, τὸ μὲν λύειν τοὺς νόμους μὴ μετὰ 14. 
τοσῶνδ᾽ ἂν μαρτύρων αἰτίαν σχεῖν, τῆς δὲ πόλεως βουλευσαμένης ἰατρὸς 


ἂν γενέσθαι. 
τὸ μὲν λύειν τοὺς νόμους may be 1) the subject of αἰτίαν σχεῖν, ‘ to 


break the laws before so many witnesses will be no crime,’ or 2) the 


15. 


15. 


4. 


348 THUCYDIDES. 


remote accusative, and the pronoun, either of the person or of — —ahe 
thing, may be supplied with σχεῖν, ‘as to a violation of the la-—- —mmw, 
you will incur no blame of the kind,’ or ‘that will incur no blame» ἀααπκ τς. 
Whether the course proposed by Nicias was a breach of the lam==s== —Jaw 
is uncertain. The words τὸ μὲν λύειν τοὺς νόμους, however take ——===—=sen, 
seem to imply that the law would be broken: the case of ti —aasthe 
Mitylenean decree, iii. 36, points in the other direction. At fir —mmrst 
sight the words τῆς πόλεως βουλευσαμένης are rather pointless ; be <«——ut 
some idea of danger or crisis is really implied in them; hence {Γ 8. “πῆς 
Prytanis is exhorted to be the physician of the state. ‘You wl "σι 
minister to the state when in the act of deciding. The aori mist 
refers to a point of time identical with that of the main verb, cg- =——=?P. 
note on iv. 112. 1. The addition κακῶς, found only in one or tyro 
MSS., is unnecessary. 


καὶ μάλιστα στρατηγῆσαΐ Te ἐπιθυμῶν, καὶ ἔλπίζων Σικελίαν re Sv ahr ro” 
καὶ Καρχηδόνα λήψεσθαι καὶ τὰ ἴδια Gua εὐτυχήσας χρήμασί τε καὶ δόξαι.» aE 
ὠφελήσειν. ch 
° . oo 
&¢ αὐτοῦ, 1) scil. διὰ τοῦ στρατηγῆσαι, Alcibiades being the ϑυῦ] - ΄ of 
of λήψεσθαι ; in this case the words δ᾽ αὐτοῦ are principally connecte» “.- " 
in sense with the latter part of the sentence, τὰ ἴδια «rA. ‘by hi = - 


—_ 6. 
office of general he would obtain money and glory,’ or 2) ro 


Alcibiades, and the Athenians are the subject of λήψεσθαι. A gooco™™” <_ 


contrast is thus afforded with ra ἴδιαι. Cp. note on viii. 12. 2 === — 


Ἐνδίῳ re αὐτῷ ἰδίᾳ ἔλεγε καλὸν εἶναι δι᾿ ἐκείνον ἀποστῆσαί τε ᾿Ιωνίαν x.r,—— 


----- 
φοβηθέντες γὰρ αὐτοῦ οἱ πολλοὶ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς τε κατὰ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα _ 


παρανομίας ἐς τὴν δίαιταν, καὶ τῆς διανοίας ὧν καθ᾽ ἐν ἕκαστον, ἐν ὅτῳ“ 
γίγνοιτο, ἔπρασσεν, ὡς τυραννίδος ἐπιθυμοῦντι πολέμιοι καθέστασαν. 

1) ‘ The extreme lawlessness of his personal life and the greatness— — 
of the spirit which he showed in everything which he did on any 
occasion in which he was concerned,’ καθ᾽ ἐν ἕκαστον being the ante- 
cedent of ἐν ὅτῳ γίγνοιτο, or 2) καθ᾽ ἐν ἕκαστον may be joined with ὧν, 
‘of the temper which he showed,’ lit. ‘in the things which he did 
taken singly,’ i.e. ‘in every single thing which he did;’ ἐν ὅτῳ. 
γίγνοιτο will then become an independent clause, ‘ whatever he was 


—_—_— 


about.’ The whole sentence will=rjs διανοίας ἑκάστων d, ἐν ὅτῳ; 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 349 


γίγνοιτο, ἔπρασσεν. Cp. the admirable description at the beginning 15. 4. 


of Alcib. i. p. 104, 105, though probably not Plato’s, of Alcibiades 
and his aims. 


καὶ δημοσίᾳ κράτιστα διαθέντα τὰ τοῦ πολέμον ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστοι τοῖς ἐπιτη- 15. 4. 
δεύμασιν αὐτοῦ ἀχθεσθέντες, καὶ ἄλλοις ἐπιτρέψαντες, οὐ διὰ μακροῦ ἔσφηλαν 
τὴν πόλιν. 

διαθέντα, the reading of all the MSS. but one, must be explained 

by an anacoluthon, or as the ‘remoter object’ of the following 
Sentence. The dative, which is found in H. and adopted by Poppo 
an the text, is almost equally harsh. 

Thucydides attributes the ruin of the state, not wholly to Alci- 
“Wiades, but partly also to the citizens who took offence at his private 
«haracter. His feeling about him is much the same as that expressed 
mn the remarkable lines which Aristophanes puts into the mouth of 

Aeschylus, Aristoph. Frogs, 1431,— 
ov χρὴ λέοντος σκύμνον ἐν πόλει τρέφειν, 
[μάλιστα μὲν λέοντα μὴ ᾽ν πόλει τρέφειν,] 


ἣν δ' ἐκτρέφῃ τις, τοῖς τρόποις ὑπηρετεῖν. 


νόμῳ μὲν γὰρ τιμὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δρωμένου καὶ δύναμις ἅμα 16, 2. 
ὑγχονοεῖται. 

‘ Public opinion holds such things to be a credit, and from what 
you actually do there arises in the mind an impression of power,’ 
ἃς 6. ‘such displays, besides the value which the world puts upon 
them, have a real effect by creating a belief in the power of Athens.’ 


mop and ἐκ τοῦ δρωμένου is a new disguise of the old opposition 
between λόγῳ and ἔργφ. 


καὶ οὐκ ἄχρηστος HS ἡ ἄνοια, ὃς ἂν τοῖς ἰδίοις τέλεσι μὴ ἑαυτὸν μόνον 16. 3. 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὠφέλῃ. 

ἥδ᾽ ἡ ἄνοια, the folly of the extravagance just before described. 
ἄνοια has the weaker MS. authority, the common reading being 
διάνοια, which gives but a feeble sense. Cp. c. 17 init. ἡ ἐμὴ νεότης 


καὶ ἄνοια παρὰ φύσιν δοκοῦσα εἶναι. For ἥδ᾽ ἡ ἄνοια ὃς ἄν cp. note on 
ἢ, 44. τ. 


οὐδέ γε ἄδικον ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ μέγα φρονοῦντα μὴ ἴσον εἶναι, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ κακῶς 16. 4. 


350 THUCYDIDES. 


16. 3. πράσσων πρὸς οὐδένα τῆς ξυμφορᾶς ἰσομοιρεῖ" GAN’ ὥσπερ Seotuxourres 
οὐ προσαγορευόμεθα, ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ τις ἀνεχέσθω καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν εὐπραγούν- 
τῶν ὑπερφρονούμενος, ἣ τὰ ἴσα νέμων τὰ ὅμοια ἀνταξιούτω. 

Had the words run ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τοὺς δυστυχοῦντάς τις οὐ προσαγορεύει, 
ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἀνεχέσθω καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν εὐπραγούντων ὑπερφρονούμενος, the 
connection with what follows would have been clearer. τὰ ἴσα νέμων 
is emphatic, ‘let him claim equality only if he is willing to grant 
it.’ In this singular passage Alcibiades expresses the Greek notion 
of μεγαλοψυχία, which did not exclude self-assertion. To the charge 
of haughtiness he replies that such haughtiness is natural to all 
men; when they are in prosperity, they look down upon those in 
adversity ; when they are in adversity themselves, they expect to be 
looked down upon. And Alcibiades (ὁ εὐπραγῶν) is to the persons 
whom he is addressing as the well-to-do citizen is to those who are 
in adversity. 


16.6. πελοποννήσου yap ra δυνατώτατα Evornoas ἄνευ μεγάλον ὑμῖν κινδύνου 
καὶ Sumdvns Λακεδαιμονίους ἐς μίαν ἡμέραν κατέστησα ἐν Μαντινείᾳ περὶ 
τῶν ἁπάντων ἀγωνίσασθαι" ἐξ οὗ, καὶ περιγενόμενοι τῇ μάχῃ, οὐδέπω καὶ 
viv βεβαίως θαρσοῦσι. 

ἐς μίαν ἡμέραν, 1)Ξ-Ξ μίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ, SCil. κατέστησα ἀγωνίσασθαι. ‘1 caused 
them to stake all they had ἴῃ one day;’ or 2)* taking ἐς ina different 
sense, as in ἐς μίαν βουλήν, v. 111 fin. ‘on the issue of a single day.’ 

καὶ νῦν, although three years have passed since the battle of 
Mantinea. 

With this boast of Alcibiades may be contrasted the statement 
of Thucydides respecting the restoration of Lacedaemonian 
prestige after the battle of Mantinea: v. 75 med. καὶ τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν 
Ἑλλήνων τότε ἐπιφερομένην αἰτίαν ἔς τε μαλακίαν διὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ 
ξυμφορὰν καὶ ἐς τὴν ἄλλην ἀβουλίαν τε καὶ βραδυτῆτα ἑνὶ ἔργῳ τούτῳ 
ἀπελύσαντο, τύχῃ μὲν ὡς ἐδόκουν κακιζόμενοι, γνώμῃ δὲ οἱ αὐτοὶ ἔτι ὄντες. 


17.1. καὶ ταῦτα ἡ ἐμὴ νεότης καὶ ἄνοια παρὰ φύσιν δοκοῦσα εἶναι ἐς τὴν Πελο- 
ποννησίων δύναμιν λόγοις τε πρέπουσιν ὡμίλησε, καὶ ὀργῇ πίστιν παρα- 
σχομένη ἔπεισε. καὶ νῦν μὴ πεφόβησθε αὐτήν, ἄλλ᾽ Ews ἐγώ τε ἔτι ἀκμάζω 
μετ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ ὁ Νικίας εὐτυχὴς δοκεῖ εἶναι, ἀποχρήσασθε τῇ ἑκατέρον ἡμῶν 


ὠφελίᾳ. 


NOTES, BOOK V1. 351 


Alcibiades ironically defends himself against ‘the atrocious 17. 1. 
crime of being a young man.’ 

ταῦτα ὡμίλησε. ταῦτα is 1) an accusative cognate with ὡμίλησε, 
“thus did my folly deal with the Peloponnesians ;’ like τόδε 
ἀνδραγαθίζεται, ii. 63 med. Others explain, not so well, 2) ταῦτα 
ὁμιλήσας ἔπραξε, ‘This did my folly accomplish by intercourse with 
them.’ 

ὀργῇ πίστιν παρασχομένη, Cp. iii. 82 med. ὁ μὲν χαλεπαίνων πιστὸς ἀεί, 

μὴ πεφόβησθε is a conjectural emendation for πεφοβῆσθαι, which 
would be taken after ἔπεισε, ‘has persuaded the Peloponnesians 
even now not to be afraid of it.’ The pointlessness of καὶ νῦν and 
the feebleness of the opposition conveyed in ἀλλά, if placed at the 
beginning of the next sentence, justify so slight a change. 


καὶ οὐδεὶς δὶ αὐτὸ ὡς περὶ οἰκείας πατρίδος οὔτε τὰ περὶ τὸ σῶμα ὅπλοις 17. 3. 
ἐξήρτυται, οὔτε τὰ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ νομίμοις κατασκευαῖς" ὅ τι δὲ ἕκαστος ἣ ἐκ 
τοῦ λέγων πείθειν οἴεται ἣ στασιάζων ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ λαβών, ἄλλην γῆν, 
μὴ κατορθώσας, οἰκήσειν, ταῦτα ἑτοιμάζεται. 

νομίμοις κατασκευαῖς, ‘customary public works,’ i.e. fortifications 
and the like. 

ὅ τι is governed by λαβών. The whole clause ἐκ τοῦ λέγων πείθειν 
is parallel to στασιάζων. The obscurity of the latter part of the 
sentence arises from the principal idea being expressed by the par- 
ticiple and the subordinate idea by the verb. ‘ Whatever each man 
thinks that he can obtain from the common stock by persuasive 
speech or by factious violence, 1)* determining if he fail to take it 
away and settle elsewhere, that he provides for himself.’ Or 2) not 
connecting λαβών in sense with οἰκήσειν, but only μὴ κατορθώσας, 
‘determining if he fail to settle elsewhere.’ More simply, ‘ what- 
ever a man thinks that he can obtain from the common stock,’ 
1)" ‘and settle elsewhere with it if he fail,’ or 2) " having only, if he 
fail, to settle elsewhere.’ 


καὶ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ὁπλῖται οὔτ᾽ ἐκείνοις ὅσοιπερ κομποῦνται, οὔτε of ἄλλοι 17. 5. 
Ἕλληνες διεφάνησαν τοσοῦτοι ὄντες, ὅσους ἕκαστοι σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἠρίθμουν, 
ἀλλὰ μέγιστον δὴ αὐτοὺς ἐψευσμένη ἡ “Ἑλλὰς μόλις ἐν τῷδε τῷ πολέμῳ 
ἑκανῶς ὡπλίσθη. 


11. δ. 


18. 2. 


18. 2. 


18. 3. 


18. 4. 


352 THUCYDIDES. 


οὐ διεφάνησαν, ‘did not stand out as being,’ (&a-) or ‘prove to ἘΞ»Ἕ»--ααἰ᾿ 
ἐψευσμένη, 1)* ‘being deceived about,’ or 2) ‘having falsified’ or: 
‘exaggerated’ the number of them. The emphasis may be loam 7d, 
either on ὡπλίσθη or on μόλις. Ejther ‘Hellas in this war, thom gh 
with difficulty, was sufficiently provided with hoplites:’ or ‘ He has 
in this war hardly had a sufficient number of hoplites, compa =ame——ed 
with other troops.’ The words look like a reflection rather of 
Thucydides than of Alcibiades, who can hardly have used ~summmthe 
expression ἐν τῷδε τῷ πολέμῳ in a time nominally of peace. 


τήν τε ἀρχὴν οὕτως ἐκτησάμεθα καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ ὅσοι δὴ ἄλλοι ἦρξαν, πεῖξαιιε--- μ΄ 
γιγνόμενοι προθύμως τοῖς ἀεὶ ἣ βαρβάροις ἣ “Ἕλλησιν ἐπικαλουμένοις" eet, 
εἴγε ἡσυχάζοιεν πάντες, ἣ φυλοκρινοῖεν οἷς χρεὼν βοηθεῖν, βραχὺ dae τὶ 
προσκτώμενοι αὐτῇ περὶ αὐτῆς ἂν ταύτης μᾶλλον κινδυνεύοιμεν. 

ἡσυχάζοιεν, although in the third person, does not refer to ὅσον. aaa δὴ 
ἄλλοι ἦρξαν, but means, ‘if everybody at Athens’ (like Nicias, =~ cP. 
c. 11 fin.) ‘ were to stay where they are, and to make distinctions =o 
race,’ φυλοκρινοῖεν, which has greater MS. authority than φιλοκρινα» > -" 
‘make nice distinctions.’ The reading φυλοκρινοῖεν is also confirm = “᾿ ed 
by the language of the Athenians at Camarina, vi. 84, 85 irs 
where they show that they do not in fact make distinctions of ra- @ a: 

τὸν yap προὔχοντα ov μόνον ἐπιόντα τις ἀμύνεται ἀλλὰ καὶ ph ὅπως ene τσ 
προκαταλαμβάνει, 


4 


or 


For μή before ὅπως cp. μὴ ἀπὸ ἀντιπάλου παρασκενῆς, i. 91 fin.: ih 


οὐκ ἐκ προσηκόντων ἁμαρτάνουσι, iii. 67 init. In all these passages xs 
negative gains force from the peculiarity of its position. 


Kal οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπισκεπτέον ὑμῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ ἥσυχον, εἰ pp “Ὁ 
τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα ἐς τὸ ὅμοιον μεταλήψεσθε. 
᾿ | ; = at 
You must not think of peace as others might, unless you ee 
e ° [ὦ «οἵ 
prepared to make a corresponding change in your policy.’ Fost ™ - 
similar use of μεταλαμβάνειν cp. i. 120 med. τὸν πόλεμον ἀντὶ εἰρήτα ἢ - 
ι . ag τὸ 
μεταλαμβάνειν, and note on vi. 87. 5, καὶ ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαί ποτε ἐκ w 
ὁμοίου μεταλάβετε. 


ἵνα Πελοποννησίων τε στορέσωμεν τὸ φρόνημα, εἰ δόξομεν ὑπεριδόν--α 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 353 


'y τῷ παρόντι ἡσυχίαν καὶ ἐπὶ Σικελίαν πλεῦσαι, καὶ ἅμα ἣ τῆς Ἑλλάδος 18. 4. 
ἐκεῖ προσγενομένων, πάσης τῷ εἰκότι ἄρξομεν, ἢ κακώσομέν γε Συρα- 
ws. 
goes with καὶ ἅμα, notwithstanding the change of construction 
ι a dependent to an independent clause. 


δὲ ἀσφαλὲς καὶ μένειν, ἤν τε προχωρῇ, καὶ ἀπελθεῖν al νῆες παρέξουσι᾽ 18. 5. 
pdropes γὰρ ἐσόμεθα καὶ ξυμπάντων Σικελιωτῶν. 
il the MSS. here read παρέξουσιν᾽ αὐτοκράτορες, also the Scholiast, 
seems puzzled by the words. It is better to read with Valcke- 
-(on Herod. v. 36), παρέξουσι" vavroxpdropes or rather ναυκράτορες, 
former word being a false form of the latter, occasionally found 
-ome MSS., cp. v. 97, 109. The converse change, αὐτοκράτορας 
vavroxpdropas, also occurs in good MSS. (Vat. H.) vi. 8 med. 
ροχωρῇ, ‘if we meet with any success, though read only in 
inferior MSS., gives a better sense than προσχώρῃ, ‘if any of the 
lians join us;’ which is here weak and unmeaning. 


'σπερ καὶ of πατέρες ἡμῶν ἅμα νέοι γεραιτέροις βουλεύοντες ἐς τάδε 18, 6. 
ν αὐτά. 

[his is the spirit of Pericles speaking by the mouth of Alcibiades. 

1. 144 fin. of γοῦν πατέρες ἡμῶν... és rade προήγαγον αὐτά. 


at τὴν πόλιν, dy μὲν ἡσυχάζῃ, τρίψεσθαί τε αὐτὴν περὶ αὑτὴν ὥσπερ καὶ 18, 6. 
γτι κιὶλ. 

\ philosophical thesis on which Socrates in the Theaetetus, 153, 

irges with great fervour and eloquence. 


Any yap Νάξου καὶ Κατάνης... ἄλλαι εἰσὶν ἑπτά. 20. 3. 
cil. Syracuse, Selinus, Gela, Agrigentum, Messené, Himera, 
narina. 


υρακοσίοις δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ βαρβάρων τινῶν dn’ ἀρχῆς φέρεται. 20. 4. 

)* ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς φέρεται (scil. χρήματα) is the reading of a majority 

ASS., ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς meaning either ‘from old times,’ or ‘as a token 

subjection ;’ 2) ἀπαρχὴ φέρεται or εἰσφέρεται is another reading. 
though the word ἀπαρχή occurs in the sense of a rent of the 

OL. I. Aa 


354 THUCYDIDES. 


20. 4. produce of the soil in Plato, Laws, vii. 806 D, it is doubtful whether 
it will bear the more general meaning of tribute. 

1. 1. πρὸς οὖν τοιαύτην δύναμιν od ναυτικῆς καὶ φαύλου στρατιᾶς μόνον Bai, 

ἀλλὰ καὶ πεζὸν πολὺν ξυμπλεῖν, εἴπερ βουλόμεθα ἄξιον τῆς διανοίας ρῶν, 

καὶ μὴ ὑπὸ ἱππέων πολλῶν εἴργεσθαι τῆς γῆς «.7.A. 

The infinitive εἴργεσθαι may depend, either 1) upon ovdépar&, 
or 2)* upon δεῖ. Either 1) ‘if we intend to do justice to our desigg™ 
and not let ourselves be confined to our lines by the enemy’s hors” 
men, etc. This however would be a reason for taking cavalry, ps Ot 
for taking infantry. Or 2)* βούλεσθαι, following δεῖ, may <A 
indirectly a new thought, ‘we must have infantry, and not dle ε- 
ourselves to be kept within our lines by the enemy’s cavalry/io™ 5.5 
‘and we must have cavalry.’ But on the other hand a) the Athenian ~~ 
only took thirty horses (vi. 43 fin.), nor δ) does Nicias in his estimate” < 
of the forces mention cavalry at all. ε) It is not with cavalry, ὑπ > a 


with slingers and javelin men, that he proposes to resist the “ x 
Syracusan cavalry. And d) in the words immediately following he “ --»" 
“seems to rely for cavalry solely on the Egestaeans and other Sand 
Sicilian allies. 1) is on the whole the preferable explanation. We > .- 


may however defend 2)*, if we suppose that we have here a re- 
flection of Thucydides made after the event and put into the mouth 
of Nicias: cp. note on vi. 37.2. Α similar remark (ols γ᾽ ἐπίσταμαι 


@ ’ , 9 a a as“ 

οὔθ᾽ ἵππους ἀκολουθήσοντας οὔδ᾽ αὐτόθεν πορισθησομένους, εἰ μὴ ὀλίγους 
4 4 ry . ΓῚ . 8 Γ᾿ =< 
τινὰς παρὰ ᾿Εγεσταίων, vi. 37 init.) is made by the Syracusan Athe- 1 


nagoras, for which Thucydides must also be made responsible. - 
The want of cavalry was a main cause of the delay which turned ¥> 
out to be the ruin of the Sicilian expedition. 


ο ° > Aa a φ , a 8 ® t= 
21. 2. γνόντας, ὅτι πολύ τε ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν μέλλομεν πλεῖν, Kai οὐκ ἐν - 
- ’ . 2» a lod e ᾽ ? H >= 
τῷ ὁμοίῳ otpatevodpevot, καὶ ἐν τοῖς τῇδε ὑπηκόοις ξύμμαχοι ἤλθετε ἐπί 
τινα, ὅθεν ῥᾷδιαι αἱ κομιδαὶ ἐκ τῆς φιλίας ὧν προσέδει, ἀλλὰ ἐς ἀλλοτρίαν == 
=e = 


πᾶσαν ἀπαρτήσοντες, ἐξ ἧς μηνῶν οὐδὲ τεσσάρων τῶν χειμερινῶν ἄγγελον 
ῥάδιον ἐλθεῖν. 

οὐκ is inserted before ἐν τοῖς τῇδε ὑπηκόοις in all the MSS. The --- 
insertion has probably arisen out of a misunderstanding of the 
previous clause and an intrusion of the general meaning of the 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 355 


The MSS. vary between στρατευσάμενοι (five first-rate 91. 2. 


sentence. 
and three inferior MSS.) and στρατευσόμενοι, ἀπαρτήσαντες and ἀπαρ- 


τήσοντες (four first-rate and eight inferior MSS.). We shall do well 

to adopt the same tense in both cases, though either the future or 

the aorist is defensible; the latter as being the historical tense 

after μέλλομεν πλεῖν, though the future would be more idiomatic. 
See also note on English text. If however we read στρατευσόμενοι, 
@reapricavres, the latter may be made to depend on the former, being 


parallel to ove ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ. 
Evzepayos ἤλθετε ἐπί τινα follows ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ καί, and is a variation 


Of «γιν-ρατευσάμενοι--- ξύμμαχοι ἐλθόντες, OF Οἵ ὅτε ἐστρατεύσασθε. 
ὝἼὝΓΩε whole clause may be translated literally, ‘You are not going 
‘> mmaake an expedition such as you made among your subjects 
here, when you went as the allies of others to attack some one, in a 
"© S=E<>n whence you had only to send and procure from a friendly 


ἴα πα «Ἢ whatever you wanted.’ 
Se τῆς φιλίας, from the adjoining friendly country. E.g. when the 


A tha & pins were attacking Mitylene they were among allies who 


“>a I <j effectually aid them, such as the Methymnaeans or Chians. 
la “== dddorplay πᾶσαν ἀπαρτήσοντες, ‘depending on an entirely strange 
wae’ μηνῶν x.rA. Cp. note on v. 20. 2. 


= ἴω 4 a 
Se » δὲ καὶ αὐτόθεν σῖτον ἐν ὁλκάσι, πυροὺς καὶ πεφρυγμένας κριθάς, 22. 1. 


ye 


the "he supplies taken out from Athens are contrasted by δέ with 
supplies which would have to be procured by plunder or other- 


WR SS em in Sicily itself 
«= a Wirébey is to be explained as a confusion of two notions, 
ἕν» «- ἜΞΩ λιν ἄγειν and ἄγειν τὸν αὐτόθι σῖτον, ‘we must bring with us from 
ε- me,’ and, ‘we must bring the corn which is at home.’ Cp. infra 
~ ss fin. τοξότων τῶν αὐτόθεν, and Plato, Republic, 567 E, τοὺς δὲ 


Sher dp’ οὐκ ἂν ἐθελήσειεν" 


ὁ δὲ wap’ "Ἐγεσταίων, ἃ λέγεται ἐκεῖ ἕτοιμα, νομίσατε καὶ λόγῳ ἂν 99, 2. 
—— ον @ora ὅτοιμα εἶναι. ᾿ 
αὶ λόγῳ is an ironical repetition of λέγεται. ‘For as to the sup- 
Pe, which are said to be awaiting us at Egesta, you had better 


Aa2 


48. 1. 


456 THUCYDIDES. 


. assume that they do indeed await us in word,’ or ‘that they are 


only sad to be awaiting us.’ 


ἣν yap αὐτοὶ ἔλθωμεν ἐνθένδε μὴ ἀντίπαλον μόνον παρασκευασάμενοι, πλήν 
γε πρὸς τὸ μάχιμον αὐτῶν τὸ ὁπλιτικόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπερβάλλοντες τοῖς πᾶσι, 
μόλις οὕτως οἷοί τε ἐσόμεθα τῶν μὲν κρατεῖν, τὰ δὲ καὶ διασῶσαι. 

αὐτοί, ‘if we ourselves, not depending on allies like the Egestaeans.’ 

Are the words πλήν ye... ὁπλιτικόν intended to be an assertion 
that the Athenians 1) would, or that they 2)* would not, equal the 
Syracusans or Sicilians (εἰ ξυστῶσιν al πόλεις, c. 21 init.) in the 
numbers of their heavy armed? The connection seems to require 
the first, the Greek the second. Nicias has been insisting in 
the previous chapter on the number of hoplites which must be 
brought to Sicily, and then to say casually 2)* that ‘of course we 
cannot hope to rival them in the number of their hoplites’ is in- 
consistent with the preceding tone of thought. On the other hand 
it is hard to see 1) how the words can mean ‘having equipped an 
army of our own, not only equal (although our hoplites will not 
of course be equal in number to their fighting men) but in every 
way superior,’ παρασκευασάμενοι being repeated before ὁπλιτικόν. For 
the opposition thus made between μαχιμόν and ὁπλιτικόν is too 
indistinct to be admissible. Nor would there be any point in con- 
trasting the number of the Athenian hoplites with the whole 
fighting population of Sicily. 

It is better to suppose the words, though where they stand they 
may be rhetorically faulty, to be a qualification introduced some- 
what out of place by Nicias, and in harmony with the general spirit 
of his speech. ‘ Except indeed as regards the number of hoplites 
which they can put into the field.’ ‘For in that respect equality is 
impossible’ is the suppressed premise. While exhorting the Athe- 
nians, he is secretly discouraging them. ‘You must do all you 
can to be a match for your opponents’ is the general drift of the 
previous chapter, and yet he throws in by the way, ‘but in the 
great arm of war you cannot be a match for them.’ This explana- 
tion is in some degree confirmed by the parallel sentiment uttered 
from the Syracusan point of view, vi. 37 init. οἷς γ᾽ ἐπίσταμαι off? 


“ ΄ Φ 
ἵππους ἀκολουθήσοντας... οὔθ᾽ ὁπλίτας ἰσοπλήθεις τοῖς ἡμετέροις. 


NOTES, BOOK VI, 257 


ὅ τι ἐλάχιστα τῇ τύχῃ παραδοὺς ἐμαυτὸν βούλομαι ἐκπλεῖν, παρασκευῇ δὲ 23. 3. 
ἀπὸ τῶν εἰκότων ἀσφαλὴς ἐκπλεῦσαι. 

Nicias, who is to afford the greatest example of fortune in his 
own person, is the most anxious to place himself above the chances 
of fortune. But, as in the case of other doomed men, τοὐνάντιον 
περιέστη αὐτῷ, the greater the precaution, the greater the ruin. 
The irony of Greek tragedy, which is never weary of repeating 
“that none can escape destiny,’ though not obtruded on the reader, 
iS present to the mind of Thucydides. Cp. note on v. 16. 1. 

παρασκευῇ δέ «.r.A. ‘To go forth in all probability secured against 
danger by the greatness of our armament.’ ἐκπλεῦσαι is merely 
a variation of ἐκπλεῖν, intended, without difference of meaning, to 
avoid tautology. 


νομίζων τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους τῷ πλήθει τῶν πραγμάτων ἣ ἀποτρέψειν ἢ, εἰ 24. 1. 
ἀναγκάζοιτο στρατεύεσθαι, μάλιστα οὕτως ἀσφαλῶς ἐκπλεῦσαι. 

Either 1) 7 before ἀποτρέψειν is out of place and should have 
preceded τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους, or 2) τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους is the object of ἀπο- 
τρέψειν and the subject of ἐκπλεῦσαι, notwithstanding ἀναγκάζοιτο pre- 
ceding. In either case the slight irregularity is not sufficient to 
justify the omission of 7, which is found in all the MSS. 

ὁ δὲ ἄκων μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι καὶ μετὰ τῶν ξυναρχόντων καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν μᾶλλον 25. 2. 
βουλεύσοιτο. ὅσα μέντοι ἤδη δοκεῖν αὐτῷ κιτιλ. 

The caution of Nicias still continues, and is graphically described 
by Thucydides. Cp. vii. 48. That the temper of Nicias in the 
conduct of the expedition was well understood by the Athenians at 
the time is shown by the jest in the Birds of Aristophanes, acted in 
the following year: 638,— 

καὶ μὴν μὰ τὸν AC οὐχὶ νυστάζειν γ᾽ ἔτι 
ὥρα ᾽στὶν ἡμῖν οὐδὲ μελλονικιᾶν. 

καὶ μετά, ‘consult further with his colleagues,’ or, ‘not only by 
himself, but with his colleagues.’ 


τριήρεσι μὲν οὐκ ἔλασσον ἣ ἑκατὸν πλευστέα εἶναι (αὐτῶν δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων 25. 2. 
ἔσεσθαι ὁπλιταγωγοὺς ὅσαι ἂν δοκῶσι, καὶ ἄλλας ἐκ τῶν ξυμμάχων μετα- 
πεμπτέας εἶναι) ὁπλίταις δέ κιτλ. 


358 THUCYDIDES. 


25.2. αὐτῶν δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων «.rd., ‘and there might be as many troop-ships 
belonging to the Athenians themselves as they thought proper.’ 
That these are included in the hundred triremes mentioned just 
above, and that ἄλλας refers to τριήρεσι, NOt to ὀπλιταγωγούε, is proved 
by c. 31 init., 43 init. τούτων ᾿Αττικαὶ μὲν ἦσαν ἑκατόν, ὧν αἱ μὲν 
ἑξήκοντα ταχεῖαι, ai 8 ἄλλαι στρατιωτίδες, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ναυτικὸν Χίων καὶ 
. τῶν ἄλλων ξυμμάχων. 


26.2. ἔς τε ἡλικίας πλῆθος ἐπιγεγενημένης κιτ.λ. 
‘In respect of the new population which was now grown up.’ 


27.1. εἰσὶ δὲ xara τὸ ἐπιχώριον, ἡ τετράγωνος ἐργασία, πολλοὶ καὶ ἐν idias 
προθύροις καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς. " 
Cp. note on English text. 


Bl. 1. οἱ πλεῖστοι (scil. Ἕρμαι) περιεκόπησαν τὰ πρόσωπα. 

‘All but one,’ according to Andocides, that one being close to «-» 2 
his father’s house. Andoc. De Myst. (i.) 62, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ὁ Ἕρμης ν΄ ας 
ὁρᾶτε πάντες, ὁ παρὰ τὴν πατρῴαν οἰκίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν, ὃν ἡ Αἰγηὶς ἀνέθηκεν, (Ἔα. 
οὐ περιεκόπη, μόνος τῶν Ἑρμῶν τῶν ᾿Αθήνῃσιν. 


49. 3. ὅ τε δῆμος μὴ μαλακίζηται, θεραπεύων, ὅτι δι’ ἐκεῖνον οἵ τ᾽ ᾿Αργεῖοι mane = 
ξυνεστράτευον καὶ τῶν Μαντινέων τινές κιτιλ. 


Cp. note on English text. 


81. 1. παρασκενὴ yap αὕτη πρώτη ἐκπλεύσασα μιᾶς πόλεως δυνάμει “EMA nv ee san 
πολυτελεστάτη δὴ καὶ εὐπρεπεστάτη τῶν ἐς ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἐγένετο«-»-π-» 
ἀριθμῷ δὲ νεῶν καὶ ὁπλιτῶν καὶ ἡ ἐς ᾿Επίδαυρον μετὰ Περικλέους καὶ = Sa 
αὐτὴ ἐς Ποτίδαιαν μετὰ Αγνωνος οὐκ ἐλάσσων ἦν᾽ τετράκις γὰρ χίλιι.»» Sst 
ὁπλῖται x.T.A. 

Either 1) πρώτη refers to the first Sicilian expedition as distincs—> <=! 
from the second: or 2)* the form of expression is changed ; < 


«- 


not πολυτελεστάτη καὶ εὐπρεπεστάτη τῶν ἐς ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον, but οὕτω» -ἘἐἰἸ Σ < 
πολυτελὴς καὶ εὐπρεπής Should have followed. δυνάμει ᾿Ἑλληνικῇ is ἘΞ «:1 
dative of manner to be taken with ἐκπλεύσασα. The words μιᾶς Ὁ».5.53. 
πόλεως recall the confederacy against Persia, which is not an excep «ΚΞ Ξ 
tion to the statement, because the fleet was not supplied by a single Z =3 “- 
city. πρώτη ἐκπλεύσασα κιτιλ. will then mean, ‘such as no single citr-9 £— ‘ 
ever before furnished.’ δυνάμει Ἑλληνικῇ in the same way implie=># Kl 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 359 


that the writer is speaking only of Greek and not of barbarian 31. 1. 
armaments. 

ἀριθμῷ δὲ νεῶν x.r.A. Compare a similar turn of thought iii. 17 
Init. καὶ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον, ὃν al νῆες ἔπλεον, ἐν τοῖς πλεῖσται δὴ νῆες 
ἅμ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοὶ κάλλει ἐγενόντο, παραπλήσιαι δὲ καὶ ἕτι πλείους 
ἀρχομένου τοῦ πολέμου. τήν τε γὰρ ᾿Αττικὴν καὶ Εὔβοιαν καὶ Σαλαμῖνα 
ἑκατὸν ἐφύλασσον κ.τ.λ. 


οὗτος δὲ ὁ στόλος ὡς χρόνιός τε ἐσόμενος καὶ κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα, οὗ ἂν 81. 3. 
δέῃ, καὶ ναυσὶ καὶ πεζῷ ἅμα ἐξαρτυθείς, τὸ μὲν ναυτικὸν μεγάλαις δαπάναις | 
τῶν τε τριηράρχων καὶ THs πόλεως ἐκπονηθὲν... τὸ δὲ πεζὸν καταλόγοις τε 
χρηστοῖς ἐκκριθέν κιτὰλ, 

1) κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα, scil. ἐσόμενος. ‘ But this expedition, being in- 
tended to be long away, and to act both by sea and land wherever 
necessary, was well provided both with sea and land forces,’ etc. 
With the participle, since no finite verb follows, ὡρμήθη may be 
supplied from ὡρμήθησαν in the preceding clause. Or better 2)* 
ἐξαρτυθείς may be taken as parallel to χρόνιος ἐσόμενος, and connected 
with κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα. The real predicate will then be found in the © 
long clause into which the subject οὗτος ὁ στόλος is distributed, 
τὸ μὲν ναυτικὸν. .. τὸ δὲ πεζόν κιτιλ. 


τοῦ μὲν δημοσίου δραχμὴν τῆς ἡμέρας τῷ ναύτῃ ἑκάστω διδόντος, καὶ 81. 3. 
Pavs παρασχόντος κενὰς ἑξήκοντα μὲν ταχείας, τεσσαράκοντα δὲ ᾿ ὁπλιτα- 
γωγούς, καὶ ὑπηρεσίας ταύταις τὰς κρατίστας, τῶν δὲ τριηράρχων ἐπιφοράς 
τε πρὸς τῷ ἐκ δημοσίυυ μισθῷ διδόντων τοῖς θρανίταις τῶν ναυτῶν καὶ 
ταῖς ὑπηρεσίαις. 

The meaning of ὑπηρεσίας is uncertain. The context shows that 
at cannot be used in the same sense as three lines previously, 
‘where it means the entire crew; for here ai ὑπηρεσίαι are distinguished 
from the highest class of rowers, @paviras. It may be supposed to 
mean the lower benches of rowers, ‘the crew’ being put for ‘the rest 
of the crew,’ and some distinction between the payment of the θρανῖται 
and of the rest of the crew being implied. ὑπηρεσίαι has also been 
explained, ‘ petty officers,’ as in the English text, or ‘the soldiers’ 
servants,’ cp. of θεράποντες, vii. 13 med., or the sailors, i.e. those who 
worked the ship, as distinct from the rowers (cp. Graser, De Vet. Re 
Navali, § 49); but there is no authority for any of these meanings. 


360 THUCYDIDES. 


B31. 3. τὸ δὲ πεζὸν xaraddyors re χρηστοῖς ἐκκριθέν κιτιλ, 


81. 4. 


81. 5. 


81. 6. 


32. I. 


33. 3 


- “Chosen by the help of good muster-rolls,’ i.e. of muster-m=—olls 
made up for this service which contained none but good name===. 


ξυνέβη δὲ πρός τε σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἅμα ἔριν γενέσθαι, ᾧ τις ἕκαστος πραν«οὐσε- 
τάχθη, καὶ ἐς τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας ἐπίδειξιν μᾶλλον εἰκασθῆναι τῆς δυνά, σκαΞως 
καὶ ἐξουσίας ἣ ἐπὶ πολεμίους παρασκευήν. 

Thucydides presents the expedition under two aspects, of wi ich 
the connection is not obvious. For the hour it was to he 
Athenians themselves a game, or race, and to the Hellenic w ««--» 1d 
a grand spectacle. The more serious purpose was left out of si eit. 


τῆς μὲν πόλεως ὅσα τε ἤδη προσετετελέκει καὶ ἃ ἔχοντας τοὺς στρατη»-“Ὥ»»“"ν: 
ἀπέστελλε x.T.A. 

προσ- in προσετετελέκει is proleptic, ‘what the city had alre=-==—=ady 
disbursed added to what she sent in the care of the generals. 
There is no need to read mpoerereAéxes with Poppo. 


καὶ ὁ στόλος οὐχ ἧσσον τόλμης τε θάμβει καὶ ὄψεως λαμπρότητι wae “PE 
βόητος ἐγένετο ἣ στρατιᾶς πρὸς obs ἐπήεσαν ὑπερβολῇ, καὶ ὅτι μέγε acto’ 
ἤδη διάπλους ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας καὶ ἐπὶ μεγίστῃ ἐλπίδι τῶν μελλόντων -“«ταες-εαρὸς 
τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ἐπεχειρήθη. 

καὶ ἐπὶ μεγίστῃ κιτιλ., ‘having the grandest hopes of future συοαξ ats, 
when they contemplated their present power,’ i.e. their hopes νὼ 
based on the actual resources which were before their eyes. 

Thucydides is not reflecting, as Arnold supposes, upon the 
smallness of the actual power of the Athenians compared with the 
magnificence of the prospect; this would be inconsistent eit 
στρατιᾶς ὑπερβολῇ : but on the adequacy, or more than adequacy” = οἱ 
the means to the end, and on the greatness of both. 


ἐκπώμασι χρυσοῖς re καὶ ἀργυροῖς of τε ἐπιβάται καὶ οἱ dpyos 


, 
σπένδοντες. 


Not as in the English text, ‘both officers and men,’ but ‘b»<—— th 
the officers and the marines,’ i.e. ‘ all who were not rowing.’ 


ὁρᾶτε ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὅτῳ τρόπῳ κάλλιστα ἀμυνεῖσθε αὐτούς. 
pa p τρόπῳ μ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 361 


ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, either 1) after ὁρᾶτε, ‘keeping in view the facts 33. 3. 
of the case;’ or 2)* after ὅτῳ τρόπῳ, ‘in what way with your existing 
means you will best defend yourself against them.’ 


οὐ περὶ τῇ Σικελίᾳ πρότερον ἔσται ὁ ἀγὼν ἣ TOU ἐκείνους περαιωθῆναι 34. 4. 
τὸν ᾿Ιόνιον. 
οὐ περὶ τῆ Σικελίᾳ, either 1) in the neighbourhood of Sicily ; or 
2)* for, or about Sicily. This latter meaning is uncommon with 
the dative in prose; but cp. Plato, Prot. 313 E, ὅρα, ὦ μακάριε, μὴ 
περὶ τοῖς φιλτάτοις κυβεύῃς τε καὶ κινδυνεύῃς : Antiph. De Caed. Herod. 
(ν.) 6, ἀνάγκη δὲ κινδυνεύοντα περὶ αὑτῷ καί πού τι καὶ ἐξαμαρτεῖν. 
τοῦ περαιωθῆναι is gen. after ὁ ἀγών. 


εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τῷ ταχυναυτοῦντι ἀθροωτέρῳ κονφίσαντες προσβάλοιεν, εἰ μὲν 34 « 
κώπαις χρήσαιντο, ἐπιθοίμεθ' ἂν κεκμηκόσιν" εἰ δὲ μὴ δοκοίη, ἔστι καὶ 
ὑποχωρῆσαι ἡμῖν ἐς Τάραντα. 

εἰ δὲ μὴ δοκοίη is in form opposed to εἰ μὲν κώπαις χρήσαιντο, 
but in meaning to ἐπιθοίμεθ' dv. ‘If they have to use their oars, 
they will be tired out, and we can attack them ; or if we think better 
mot,’ either because they have a fair wind, or because they have 
any other advantage, ‘we may retreat to Tarentum.’ 


οἱ δὲ μετ᾽ ὀλίγων ἐφοδίων ὡς ἐπὶ ναυμαχίᾳ περαιωθέντες ἀποροῖεν ἂν 84. 5. 

κατὰ χωρία ἔρημα, καὶ ἣ μένοντες πολιορκοῖντο ἄν, ἣ πειρώμενοι παραπλεῖν 
τὴν τε ἄλλην παρασκευὴν ἀπολίποιεν ἄν, καὶ τὰ τῶν πόλεων οὐκ ἂν βέβαια 
ἔχοντες, εἰ ὑποδέξοιντο, ἀθυμοῖεν. 
_ Thestwo alternatives suggested by Hermocrates are a) the fighting 
part of the Athenian fleet, if they wait for the rest, will be blockaded 
in some desolate place ; or 4) if they sail on they will have left their 
supplies behind them, and having no cities on which they can 
rely will be driven to despair. The sanguine orator does not 
stop to discuss how or where the Athenian fleet is to be blockaded 
by any force which the Sicilians could bring against it. 


ὥστ᾽ ἔγωγε τούτῳ τῷ λογισμῷ ἡγοῦμαι ἀποκλῃομένους αὐτοὺς οὐδ᾽ 84. 6. 
ἂν ἀπᾶραι ἀπὸ Κερκύρας, ἀλλ᾽ ἣ διαβουλευσαμένους καὶ κατασκοπαῖς χρω- 
μένους, ὅποσοί τ᾽ ἐσμὲν καὶ ἐν ᾧ χωρίῳ, ἐξωσθῆναι ἂν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐς χειμῶνα. 


94. 6. 


34. 7. 


34. 8. 


34. 9. 


362 THUCYDIDES. 


The historical aorist διαβουλευσαμένους, expressing a series of 
actions as taking place together, and without reference to time, is 
combined with the present χρωμένους, expressing continuous action. 


τῶν & ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ αἱ γνῶμαι ἵστανται, καὶ τοὺς 
προεπιχειροῦντας, ἣ τοῖς γε ἐπιχειροῦσι προδηλοῦντας, ὅτι ἀμυνοῦνται, μᾶλλον 
πεφόβηνται, ἰσοκινδύνους ἡγούμενοι. 

πρὸς τὰ λεγόμενα κιτιλ, Cp. i. 140 init. πρὸς τὰς ξυμφορὰς καὶ τὰς 
γνώμας τρεπομένους. 

ἱσοκινδύνους, 1)* ‘remembering that the enemy are in no greater 
danger than they,’ i.e. that they are both in equal danger. Or 2) 
‘equal to the danger,’ ἴσος being used as in other compounds of 


ἴσος, ἰσόθεος, ἰσοχειλής x.T.A. 


ἐπέρχονται γὰρ ἡμῖν ὡς οὐκ ἀμυνουμένοις, δικαίως κατεγνωκότες, ὅτι 
αὐτοὺς οὐ μετὰ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐφθείρομεν' εἰ δ᾽ ἴδοιεν παρὰ γνώμην 
τολμήσαντας, τῷ ἀδοκήτῳ μᾶλλυν ἂν καταπλαγεῖεν ἣ τῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς 
δυνάμει. 

παρὰ γνώμην. Either 1)* ‘ contrary to our better judgment ;’ cp. 
the description of the Athenians, i. 70. init. αὖθις δὲ of μὲν καὶ παρὰ 
δύναμιν τολμηταὶ καὶ παρὰ γνώμην xuwduvevrai: or 2) ‘contrary to 
their expectation, the words being resumed in τῷ ἀδοκήτῳ. 

It may be urged against 1)* that the expression is calculated 
rather to alarm than to encourage the Syracusans. But it may be 
replied that Thucydides does not always maintain such dramatic 
proprieties. Cp. i. 120 fin. when the Corinthians, who are en- 
couraging the Spartans to fight vigorously, nevertheless @escribe 
in lively colours the uncertainty of war. Against 2) it may be 
argued that τῷ ἀδοκήτῳ becomes a feeble repetition of παρὰ γνώμην. 
But the connection with the preceding words is better maintained. 
‘They rightly judged us to be cowards, but, if contrary to their 
judgment, they now find us brave, the unexpected discovery will 
terrify them more than our real strength.’ For κατεγνωκότες cp. 
note on vill. 8. 4. 


πείθεσθε οὖν μάλιστα μὲν ταῦτα τολμήσαντες, εἰ δὲ μή, ὅ τι τάχιστα 


τἄλλα ἐς τὸν πόλεμον ἑτοιμάζειν, καὶ παραστῆναι παντὶ τὸ μὲν καταφρονεῖν 


NOTES, BOOK VI, 363 


sols ἐπιόντας ἐν τῶν ἔργων τῇ ἀλκῇ δείκνυσθαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἤδη, τὰς pera 84. 9. 
«όβου παρασκευὰς ἀσφαλεστάτας νομίσαντας, ὡς ἐπὶ κινδύνου πράσσειν, 
“ΣΦ ιρησιμώτατον ἂν ξυμβῆναι. 
The construction is varied, both τολμήσαντες and ἑτοιμάζειν follow- 
Sing πείθεσθε : πείθεσθε ταῦτα τολμήσαντες, πείθεσθε ἑτοιμάζειν. 
παραστῆναι παντί is governed by some general notion implied in 
“πείθεσθε which may be expressed by supplying ὥστε. There is no 
need to suppose that the infin. is here used for the imper. 
τὸ δ᾽ ἤδη κιτὰλ., τὸ δέ Opposes the present preparation to the future 
action, τὸ μέν, ‘hereafter in the moment of action will be the time 
for contempt, for the present the best thing that we can do is to 
make careful preparation.’ τὸ δ᾽ ἤδη is adverbial. πράσσειν is to 
be taken absolutely, not as governing παρασκευάς. The construc- 
tion is τὸ δ᾽ ἤδη, χρησιμώτατον ἂν ξυμβῆναι εἰ ὡς ἐπὶ κινδύνου πράσσοιτε, 
νομίσαντες τὰς μετὰ φόβου παρασκευὰς ἀσφαλεστάτας εἶναι. Or τὸ δ᾽ ἤδη 
may be taken with πράσσειν, answering to τὸ μὲν καταφρονεῖν. 


οἱ γὰρ δεδιότες ἰδίᾳ τι βούλονται τὴν πόλιν ἐς ἔκπληξιν καθιστάναι, ὅπως 36. 2. 
Tep κοινῷ φόβῳ τὸ σφέτερον ἐπηλυγάζωνται. 

οἱ γάρ, cp. note on iv. 33. 2. 

τὸ σφέτερον, not δέος, understood from τῷ κοινῷ φόβῳ, but, more 
generally, the ‘state of their own minds ;’ or, ‘what they know only 
Loo well.’ ° 


ols γ ἐπίσταμαι οὔθ᾽ ἵππους ἀκολουθήσοντας, οὐδ᾽ αὐτόθεν πορισθησο- 87. 1. 
Φιένους, εἰ μὴ ὀλίγους τινὰς παρὰ ᾿Εγεσταίων, οὔθ᾽ ὁπλίτας ἰσοπληθεῖς τοῖς 
«ἡμετέροις ἐπὶ νεῶν γε ἔλθόντας, (μέγα γὰρ τὸ καὶ αὐταῖς ταῖς ναυσὶ κούφαις 
“τοσοῦτον πλοῦν δεῦρο κομισθῆναι.) τὴν τε ἄλλην παρασκενήν, ὅσην δεῖ ἐπὶ 
-πόλιν τοσήνδε πορισθῆναι, οὐκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν. 

οὐκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν is best taken 1)* as the predicate of the clause 
τὴν ἄλλην παρασκευὴν ὅσην δεῖ πορισθῆναι, and as governed by ἐπίσταμαι, 
μέγα yop... κομισθῆναι being a parenthesis. 

Poppo 2) connects the words τήν re ἄλλην... οὐκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν with 
μέγα yap τὸ κομισθῆναι, putting a full stop after ἐλθόντας, and a comma 
after ὅσην δεῖ. ‘It is hard to accomplish so long a voyage even 
with ships only, and no troops or lading; and not less difficult 
to provide all the supplies required against so vast a city, which 


97. 1. 


97. 2. 


364 THUCYDIDES. 


cannot be inconsiderable.’ But according to this interpretation, a) 
the second clause, τήν re... οὖσαν, weakens the first, rd καὶ αὐταῖς 
«οὐ κομισθῆναι, And δ) the precision and length of the clause τήν re 
ἄλλην παρασκενήν .. . οὖσαν shows that these words describe a case 
which is real, and not merely hypothetical. 

Or 3) τήν re ἄλλην παρασκευήν (=obre τὴν ἄλλην παρασκευήν) may be 
taken with κομισθησομένην understood from κομισθῆναι, and yet re- 
garded as parallel with οὔθ᾽ irmovs—ot@ ὁπλίτας. 


ὥστε, παρὰ τοσοῦτον γιγνώσκω, μόλις ἄν μοι δοκοῦσιν, εἰ πόλιν ἑτέραν 
τοσαύτην, ὅσαι Συράκουσαί εἶσιν, ἔλθοιεν ἔχοντες, καὶ ὅμορον οἰκήσαντες 
τὸν πόλεμον ποιοῖντο, οὐκ ἂν παντάπασι διαφθαρῆναι, ἧπου γε δὴ ἐν πάσῃ 
πολεμίᾳ Σικελίᾳ, (ξυστήσεται γάρ.) στρατοπέδῳ τε ἐκ νεῶν ἱδρυθέντι 
καὶ ἐκ σκηνιδίων καὶ ἀναγκαίας παρασκενῆς οὐκ ἐπὶ πολὺ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων 
ἱππέων ἐξιόντες. 

παρὰ τοσοῦτον γιγνώσκω, 1)* ‘to such a length do I carry my 
opinion.’ παρὰ rocovrov=és τοσοῦτον, Cp. παραπᾶν, and note on iii. 
49. 4. 

Or 2) ‘by so much do I decide’ (otherwise), i.e. ‘so far do I 
differ from my opponent’s view.’ Cp. expressions like παρὰ πολὺ 
νικᾶν, ‘to win by much.’ 

στρατοπέδῳ may be explained as the dative of cause or reason, 
‘by reason of their having a camp,’ or, as the dative of circum- 
stance, ‘when they have a camp. The orator is enumerating in 
various constructions, ἐν πάσῃ πολεμίᾳ Σικελίᾳ, στρατοπέδῳ «.t.d., the 
causes or circumstances which would lead to the destruction of the 
Athenians ; ‘they will be in a country of enemies united against 
them ; their camp will be hastily pitched by men just landed; they 
will have only small huts and meagre supplies; they will be almost 
imprisoned by our cavalry.’ 

ἐκ σκηνιδίων καὶ ἀναγκαίας παρασκενῆς, 1) may be connected with 
ἐξιόντες, or 2)* may be parallel to ἐν πάσῃ πολεμίᾳ Σικελίᾳ... στρατο- 
πέδῳ, describing a third feature in the situation of the Athenians; 
οὐκ ἐπὶ πολὺ... ἐξιόντες will then be a further explanation of the 
words ἐκ σκηνιδίων κιτιλ., ‘from which they will not be able to 
go far.’ 

ἀναγκαίας παρασκευῆς, 1) may be governed by ἐκ, or 2) may be 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 365 


=garded as a genitive absolute (scil. οὔσης), partly supported by ἐκ. 37. 2. 

2p. ili, 82. 1, and note, πολεμουμένων δέ, καὶ ξυμμαχίας dua ἑκατέροις. 
Compare the facts (particularly in vii. 4 fin. 13) which Thucy- 

ides in the person of the orator is anticipating. 


καὶ ταῦτα ὁμοίως καὶ κατὰ τὰ μέρη καὶ ξύμπαντα ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ 89. 1. 
κσχομοιρεῖν. 
Either 1) these classes in a democracy have in their several 
>laces and all together (i.e. in their assembly) a fair share of power. 
Jr better 2)* xara ra μέρη may be regarded merely as a pleonasm, 
each and all.’ Cp. note on i. 36. 3. 


ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ----ὦ πάντων ἀξυνετώτατοι, εἰ μὴ pavOdvere κακὰ σπεύ- 40. 1. 
δοντες, ἣ ἀμαθέστατοί ἐστε ὧν ἐγὼ οἶδα Ἑλλήνων, ἣ ἀδικώτατοι, εἰ εἰδότες 
τολμᾶτε---ἀλλ᾽ ἤτοι μαθόντες γε, ἣ μεταγνόντες, τὸ τῆς πόλεως ξύμπασι 
κοινὸν αὔξετε, ἡγησάμενοι τοῦτο μὲν ἂν καὶ ἴσον καὶ πλέον οἱ ἀγαθοὶ ὑμῶν 
ἥπερ τὸ τῆς πόλεως πλῆθος μετασχεῖν. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι κτλ. There is no variation in the MSS. The text 
is probably genuine. The construction changes as the writer 
proceeds. There should be no full stop after τολμᾶτε. The words 
ἀλλ’ ἔτι καὶ νῦν were intended to be followed more closely by 
the imperative avfere. But Thucydides has gone off upon the word 
ἀξυνετώτατοι. 

The clause εἰ μὴ μανθάνετε κακὰ σπεύδοντες may be connected 
either 1)* with ἀξυνετώτατοι, or 2) with ἀμαθέστατοί ἐστε which 
follows. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἤτοι is a resumption of the first ἀλλά, aS ἀμαθέστατοι, sug- 
gested by μανθάνετε, is Of ἀξυνετώτατο. The idea is further de- 
veloped in μαθόντες. AS μάθοντες answers to ἀμαθέστατοι SO pera- 
“γνόντες tO ἀδικώτατοι. 

τοῦτο μέν x.7.A. 501]. τὸ τῆς πόλεως κοινόν governed by σχεῖν con- 
tained in μετασχεῖν. 


αὐτὴ 8 ἐφ᾽ αὑτῆς σκοποῦσα τούς τε λόγους ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὡς ἔργα δυνα- 40. 2. 
μένους κρινεῖ x.7.A. 

‘She will consider the matter independently,’ i.e. without your 
assistance, ‘and judge the words which proceed from you as 


466 THUCYDIDES. 


40. 2. equivalent to deeds.’ δυναμένους, either ‘having the effect of,’ or 
‘to be reckoned as, deeds.’ 


41. 3. καὶ ἣν dpa μηδὲν δεήσῃ, οὐδεμία βλάβη τοῦ τε τὸ κοινὸν κοσμηθῆναι καὶ 
ἵπποις καὶ ὅπλοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις οἷς ὁ πολέμος ἀγάλλεται (τὴν δ᾽ ἐπιμέλειαν 
καὶ ἐξέτασιν αὐτῶν ἡμεῖς ἕξομεν), καὶ τῶν πρὸς τὰς πόλεις διαπομπῶν x.7 A. 
The Syracusan general, like military commanders in all ages 
and countries, sees no harm in increasing the army. 
τοῦ τε x.7.d. to be joined with τῶν διαπομπῶν. Both are governed 
by βλάβη. If the connection is thought harsh, we must read ye 
instead of τέ, placing a full stop after ἀγάλλεται. . 


44.1. πλοῖα δὲ ἑκατὸν ἃ ἐξ ἀνάγκης pera τῶν ὁλκάδων ξυνέπλει κιτιλ. 
ἐξ ἀνάγκης, pressed into the service, opposed to ἑκούσιοι, infra. 


44.3. καὶ πρός Te τοὺς “Ῥηγίνους λόγους ἐποιήσαντο ἀξιοῦντες Χαλκιδέας ὄντας 
Χαλκιδεῦσιν οὖσι Λεοντίνοις βοηθεῖν. οἱ δὲ οὐδὲ μεθ᾽ ἑτέρων ἔφασαν 
ἔσεσθαι x.r.d. 

Either 1) τέ is simply ‘ too,’ see note on i. 9.3; or 2) as Classen 
supposes, it joins λόγους ἐποιήσαντο with the previous verbs κατε- 
σκευάσαντο and ἡσύχασαν, as καί (=‘also’) connects the Rhegians 
with the inhabitants of other places to whom the Athenians had 
applied. Or 3) the construction is interrupted by the interposition 
of the clause of δὲ οὐδέ x.r.A. and τέ is resumed in the next sentence, 
οἱ δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ πράγματα ἐσκόπουνΞΞ καὶ πρός, OF πρός τε, τὰ 


ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ κτλ. 


47. 2. καὶ τῇ πόλει, δαπανῶντας τὰ οἰκεῖα, μὴ κινδυνεύειν. 
τῇ πόλει iS to be taken with κινδυνεύειν, not with δαπανᾶν, as in ii. 
65 med. τῇ πόλει κινδυνεύοντας : vi. 9 fin. τοῖς ἑτοίμοις κινδυνεύειν: 
‘not waste their resources, and run a risk which would imperil the 
State.’ τὰ οἰκεῖα, their own resources, as opposed to those of their 
Sicilian allies. 


49.2. τὸ yap πρῶτον πᾶν στράτευμα δεινότατον εἶναι. ἣν δὲ χρονίσῃ πρὶν ἐς 
ὄψιν ἐλθεῖν, τῇ γνώμῃ ἀναθαρσοῦντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ τῇ ὄψει καταφρονεῖν 
μᾶλλον. αἰφνίδιοι δὲ ἣν προσπέσωσιν, ἔως ἔτι περιδεεῖς προσδέχονται, 


μάλιστ᾽ ἂν σφᾶς περιγενέσθαι καὶ κατὰ πάντα ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐκφοβῆσαι, τῇ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 367 


Te ὄψει, πλεῖστοι γὰρ ἂν νῦν φανῆναι, καὶ τῇ προσδοκίᾳ ὧν πείσονται, 49. 2. 
μάλιστα δ᾽ ἂν τῷ αὐτίκα κινδύνῳ τῆς μάχης. 
τῇ ὄψει, dative of circumstance; ‘after a delay men recover courage 
in their minds, and when the enemy is present to their eyes,’ lit. 
With their sight of him, ‘they rather despise than fear him.’ κατα- 
φρονεῖν μᾶλλον is opposed to δεινότατον in the previous sentence, and 
TY ὄψει tO τῇ γνώμῃ, ‘when they actually see him.’ 
σφᾶς περιγενέσθαι. The reflexive is used, because Lamachus is 
referring to his own army, and the accusative σφᾶς because the 
7€fi exive pronoun includes others besides the speaker. σφεῖς would 
‘= been equally correct, and to this construction the writer reverts 
2 we-Acioro below. 
<_™». iii. 111 med. νομίσας καταπροδίδοσθαι σφᾶς : iv. 36 init. ἐπειδὴ 
“--ΞΞΕπέραντον ἦν, προσελθὼν ὁ τῶν Μεσσηνίων στρατηγὸς Κλέωνι καὶ An- 
“΄΄«πλένει ἄλλως ἔφη πονεῖν σφᾶς. 


mm axis δὲ εἶναι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς πολλοὺς ἀποληφθῆναι ἔξω. 49. 3. 
Ξε λειφθῆναι is the reading of several good MSS. The sense 
— Ἤν κ᾽ favours ἀποληφθῆναι. 


ϑδμη ναύσταθμον δὲ ἐπαναχωρήσαντας καὶ ἐφορμισθέντας Μέγαρα ἔφη χρῆναι 49. 4. 
wr wi Gas. 
See note on English text. 
‘If 1)* we adopt the conjecture of Schaefer, ἐφορμισθέντας, ‘ cast- 
7. w= anchor, the fleet, according to the proposal of Lamachus, 
ust be supposed to return to Megara after the army has esta- 
kk Sshed itself at Syracuse. Cp. the ναύσταθμον of the Athenians at 
alea during the blockade of Mitylene (note on iii. 4. 5). 
If 2) ἐφορμηθέντας be retained, ἐπαναχωρήσαντας must imply simply 
mmaking Megara a base of operations,’ without any idea of ‘re- 
Xweating.” We may translate, ‘ withdrawing to a safe position, and — 
then attacking Syracuse.’ But it must be admitted that ἐφορμᾶσθαι, 
Zan the sense of ‘attack,’ does not occur elsewhere in Attic prose. 


πόλει μὲν ἂν ov δέξασθαι, ἀγορὰν δ᾽ ἔξω παρέξειν. δ0. 1. 
The form of the two clauses slightly varies: ‘They cannot 
mM eceive them into the city, but they will provide a market out- 
Side.’ 


δ0. 4. 


62. 1. 


54, 3. 


54. 4. 


368 THUCYDIDES. 


τοὺς οὖν ὄντας ἐν Συρακούσαις Λεοντίνων ὡς παρὰ φίλους καὶ evepyter- eas 
᾿Αθηναίους ἀδεῶς ἀπιέναι. 

᾿Αθηναίους, which is found in one bad MS. (Dan.), all the ras== st 
reading ᾿Αθηναίων, must here be adopted. 


εἰσηγγέλλετο δὲ αὐτοῖς ἔκ τε Καμαρίνης, ws, εἰ ἔλθοιεν, προσχωροῖεν ἀν, 
καὶ ὅτι Συρακύσιοι πληροῦσι ναυτικόν. 

ἔκ τε Καμαρίνης corresponds to καὶ ὅτι Συρακόσιοι. The firstm —_ (5 
sage only came from Camarina. 


ἐπιβονλεύει εὐθὺς ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἀξιώσεως κατάλυσιν -- 1 
τυραννίδι. 

ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἀξιώσεως, he waS ἃ μέσος πολίτης, and took 
such measures as a citizen in his station could; that is to =< ays 
he conspired with a few friends to assassinate the tyrant, Ὁ At 
stead of raising a party against him, as the Alcmaeonidae i 
have done. 


ni 
καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ὁ Ἵππαρχος ὡς αὖθις πειράσας οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἔπειθε ΡΝ «δῇ Σὰ 


“Appodioy, βίαιον μὲν οὐδὲν ἐβούλετο δρῶν, ἐν τόπῳ δέ τινι ἀφανεῖ ὡς οὐ 


. τοῦτο δὴ παρασκευάζετο προπηλακιῶν αὐτόν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τὴν ἄλλην dpy a: 


ἐπαχθὴς ἦν ἐς τοὺς πολλούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεπιφθόνως κατεστήσατο" καὶ ἐπετήδευσ “ΡΞ 
ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ τύραννοι οὗτοι ἀρετὴν καὶ ξύνεσιν, καὶ ᾿Αθηναίους xo, 
τὴν μόνον πρασσόμενοι τῶν γιγνομένων τήν τε πόλιν αὐτῶν καλῶς διεκόσ» 


μησαν καὶ τοὺς πολέμους διέφερον καὶ ἐς τὰ ἱερὰ ἔθυον. 


! = = 
ἐν τόπῳ τινι ἀφανεῖ κιτιλ., ‘to strike a blow at Harmodius some- — cs => 
where where he could not be found out, as though the insult which «* 
he meditated had some other motive than the real one. The —_~s 
reading of the MSS., though the expression is somewhat singular, ~ > 
is far better than the emendation ἐν τρόπῳ τινι ἀφανεῖ, which is feeble, “<<t& 
and in which the preposition (though it is sometimes found with 
τρόπῳ) is superfluous. s 
οὐδὲ yap τὴν ἄλλην ἀρχήν «1A. Although Hipparchus was not < 


tyrant at the time, Thucydides himself attributes some kind of ἀρχή 
to him, and hence he might seem, if he were not the author of the 
opposite view, to have fallen into the popular error. τύραννοι οὗτοι 
below is said generally, and probably includes Pisistratus as well 
as the rest of the family. On the other hand, we are told that 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 369 


Pisistratus levied a tax of ten, and not like his sons of five, δά. 4. 
per cent., and therefore τύραννοι οὗτοι must mean Hippias and 
Hipparchus. But see Grote, part II. chap. xxx. ‘For the state- 
Ment of Boeckh, Dr. Arnold, and Dr. Thirlwall, that Pisistratus 
had levied a tithe or tax of 10 per cent., and that his sons reduced 
Bt to the half, I find no sufficient warrant; certainly the spurious 
Fetter of Pisistratus to Solon in Diogenes Laertius, i. 53, ought not 
ΞΟ be considered as proving anything.’ See Meursius, Pisistr. 6, 7, 9. 
“The statement that Hippias and not Hipparchus was the tyrant 
Ξε αὶ the elder son may well be believed on the testimony of 
“aE™~¥nucydides, who had made special inquiry into the facts at a 
Φ πα τὸ χης when these were still capable of being verified by tradition. 
ἝΞ απ -- account is confirmed by Herodotus, v. 55. The only im- 
—» <—=sriant witness on the other side is the author of the Hipparchus, 
ΞΞα @ ‘@ributed to Plato, in which Hipparchus is called the eldest son of 
Mi. sistratus, 228 B. The dialogue is probably not more than a 
== <= eration after the age of Plato, because included in the Alex- 
ΞΘ “wr—nadrian catalogue of his works. The testimony of Aelian (circ. 
= =o. p.), who follows the Hipparchus, is not worth considering. 
τύραννοι οὗτοι κτλ. Poppo inserts the article before τύραννοι, 
We wet this is not necessary if τύραννοι be taken as the predicate, 
~ “wa—hese men, for tyrants,’ etc. ἀρετήν, Cp. note on viii. 68. 1. 
τοὺς πολέμους διέφερον, ‘they carried their wars through,’ or 
“W>rought them to a successful issue :’ cp. τὸν πρὸς Πελοποννησίους 
rae ἀπ Ἄεμον προθύμως διοίσειν, viii. 75 med. ; ‘ persevere in the war.’ 


τὰ δὲ ἄλλα αὐτὴ ἡ πόλις τοῖς πρὶν κειμένοις νόμοις ἐχρῆτο. δά. 6. 
airy implies that the city still retained a kind of independence, 
“ he city itself’ as opposed to the tyrants. 
eal rp piv ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ προσοικοδομήσας ὕστερον ὁ δῆμος ᾿Αθηναίων 54. 7. 
Om © eCoy μῆκος, τοῦ βωμοῦ ἠφάνισε τοὐπίγραμμα᾽ τοῦ δὲ ἐν Πυθίον ἔτι καὶ 
“Ἕν δῆλόν ἐστιν ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασι λέγον τάδε" 
Μνῆμα τόδ᾽ ἧς ἀρχῆς Πεισίστρατος [Ἱππίου υἱὸς 
θῆκεν ᾿Απόλλωνος Πυθίου ἐν τεμένει. 
“ποῦ βωμοῦ, may be taken either 1)* with τοὐπίγραμμα; or 2) with 
δα τὴ ec os. 
VOL. II. Bb 


54. 7. 


55. 2. 


55. 3. 


370 THUCYDIDES. 


ἔτι καὶ νῦν. ‘Jt ts equally legible to this day, the marble on which 
it was inscribed having been accidentally discovered in a courtyard 
near the Ilissos, by M. Kumanudes, in 1877.’ Newton, Essays on 
Art and Archaeology, p. 192. See also Kirchhoff, C. I. A. vol. iv. 
(Supplement), no. 373 c. 

The marble slab is broken into two pieces, the half word and 
word -TPATOZ ΗΙΠΠΙΟ, being lost by the fracture. Beneath the 
inscription is a leaf moulding. Thucydides tells us that in his 
time the letters were already ‘indistinct,’ ἀμυδρά. Yet there is no 
indistinctness in their present state, and they still retain their old 
Athenian character. We may conjecture, either that they were ——» 
plastered over after the fall of the Pisistratidae, and that the plaster=ar- = 
gradually wore off: or that at an early date, but after the age of «—f{ 
Thucydides, they were washed or restored without losing .their a =ir 
antique form. 


εἰκὸς yap ἦν τὸν πρεσβύτατον πρῶτον γῆμαι. καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ orp Se -ὦ" 
πρῶτος γέγραπται μετὰ τὸν πατέρα, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀπεοικότως διὰ τὸ wpe Se 
βεύειν τε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τυραννεῦσαι. 

The logical order is inverted. What Thucydides means to p= 5 
is, ‘Hippias married first, and his name was placed first on thc π᾿ 
inscription : both circumstances afford a strong presumption thas 4. -5: 
he was the eldest son.’ Instead of this he says, ‘Hippias natu» ¥ — 
rally married first, etc., because he was the eldest son.’ 

ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ στήλῃ. See note on English text. 


= 
? v4 , a4 ΓΗ . » a 
ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πρότερον ξύνηθες τοῖς μὲν πολίταις φοβερόν, ἐς δὲ τοὺς ἐπι-;» = 


κούρους ἀκριβές, πολλῷ τῷ περιόντι τοῦ ἀσφαλοῦς κατεκράτησε, καὶ οὐχ ὦ «3» 
ἀδελφὸς νεώτερος dv ἠπόρησεν, ἐν ᾧ οὐ πρότερον ξυνεχῶς ὡμιλήκει τῇ ἀρχῇ — = 
The two xat’s are really connected, though the connection ie = 


—_ 


somewhat obscure : not only was Hippias more than secured by the» 

terror which he had inspired in the citizens, and the habits of obe- "| 

dience in which he had trained his mercenaries, but being an ex— _— 
eee 


perienced ruler, and not a mere younger brother, he knew how to act- —* 
3 « ε e a 9 a e . ἊΝ ΗΝ 
ἐν ᾧ... ὡμιλήκει τῇ ἀρχῇ. 1)* ‘He was in no perplexity, SS 
a younger brother would have been who had not before beer Τα 
constantly in the habit of command.’ ἐν ᾧ ncarly=és, ‘in that hee” ~~ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 371 


had not,’=‘ who had not.’ οὐ and not μή is here required by 565. 3. 
the sense, not indefinite, ‘supposing him not to have,’ but direct, 
‘who had not,’ or ‘not having, been familiar with power,’ ‘ quippe 
qui in imperio non constanter versatus esset.’ Or 2) supplying ἄν, 
and making Hippias, not the hypothetical ‘younger brother,’ the 
Nominative to ὡμιλήκει, ‘in which case he would not have been 
familiar,’ etc. Cp. viii. 86 med. ὡρμημένων γὰρ τῶν ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ ᾿Αθη- 
ναίων πλεῖν ἐπὶ σφᾶς αὐτούς, ἐν ᾧ σαφέστατα ᾿Ιωνίαν καὶ 'Ελλήσποντον 
εὐθὺς εἶχον οἱ πολέμιοι, κωλυτὴς γενέσθαι. 
ov ξυνεχῶς ὡμιλήκει, either 1)* ‘had not constantly been used to 
command,’ or 2) in a more precise sense, ‘had not been uninter- 
ruptedly used to command,’ i. e. ‘had suddenly succeeded to it.’ 


wal ἔδει ἄρξαι μὲν αὐτούς, ξυνεπαμύνειν δὲ εὐθὺς τὰ πρὸς τοὺς δορυ- 56, 2. 
gGo<S prs, ἐκείνους. 


«ὐτούς, ‘themselves,’ scil. Harmodius and Aristogiton.  ékeévous, 
ss<— Al. τοὺς ξυνεπιθησομένους τῷ ἔργῳ. 


“ταὶ περιέτυχον τῷ ᾿Ιππάρχῳ παρὰ τὸ Λεωκόριον καλούμενον. 57. 3. 

Between περί and παρά the reading is doubtful. One good 
MIS. (H.) reads περί, which is illustrated by the parallel place 
irz i. 20 med. τῷ ᾿Ἱππάρχῳ περιτυχόντες περὶ τὸ Λεωκόριον καλούμενον. 
But παρά may be sufficiently explained by the common confusion 
Of x <—=s¢t and motion. Cp. note on viii. 108. 2: Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 9, 
fe ταύτην τὴν πόλιν ἦν πυραμὶς λιθίνη: Andoc. De Myst. (i.) 38, 
πὰ δὲ παρὰ τὸ προπύλαιον τὸ Διονύσου ἦν, and § 62, τὸν Ἑρμῆν τὸν παρὰ 
ἐμ“ SE «ὐρβαντεῖον, and ὁ παρὰ τὴν πατρῴαν οἰκίαν. 


O= ami ὕστερον ληφθεὶς οὐ ῥᾳδίως διετέθη. 57. 4. 
ither 1) ‘was not easily disposed of;’ or better 2)* ‘was 


tc. 
all erred’ 


= DBides τῇ ὄψει πλασάμενος πρὸς τὴν ξυμφοράν. 58. 1. 
~ ~Making up his countenance when he heard of the calamity, so 
"®« reveal nothing.’ τῇ ὄψει may be taken either 1) with ἀδήλως, 
2) with, πλασάμενος, 1) ‘Making up his countenance so as to 
=al nothing in his countenance,’ (πλασάμενος, scil. αὐτήν), or 2) 
making himself up in his countenance.’ 
Bb2 


ass 
or 
Fen 


δ9. 3. 


θ0. I. 


60. 2. 


60. 3. 


472 THUCYDIDES. 


καὶ αὐτῆς σῆμα ἐν Λαμψάκῳ ἐστὶν ἐπίγραμμα ἔχον τόδε. 
Attributed by Aristotle (Rhet. i. 9. 31), who quotes the third 
line, to Simonides. 


καὶ πάντα αὐτοῖς ἐδόκει ἐπὶ ξυνωμοσίᾳ ὀλιγαρχικῇ καὶ τυραννικῇ we- 
πρᾶχθαι. 
Cp. Aristoph. Wasps (acted in 422, seven years earlier), 488— 
ὡς ἅπανθ᾽ ἡμῖν τυραννίς ἐστι καὶ ξυνωμόται, 
ἤν τε μεῖζον ἣν τ᾽ ἔλαττον πρᾶγμά τις κατηγορῇ, 
ἧς ἐγὼ οὐκ ἤκουσα τοὔνομ᾽ οὐδὲ πεντήκοντ᾽ ἐτῶν" 


νῦν δὲ πολλῷ τοῦ ταρίχους ἐστὶν ἀξιωτέρα. 


ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἐπεδίδοσαν μᾶλλον ἐς τὸ ἀγριώτερόν τε καὶ πλείους 
ἔτι ξυλλαμβάνειν. 
ξυλλαμβάνειν, as well as ἀγριώτερον, is to be taken with és τό. 


λέγων δὲ ἔπεισεν αὐτόν, ὡς χρή, εἰ μὴ καὶ δέδρακεν, αὑτόν re ἄδειαν 
ποιησάμενον σῶσαι καὶ τὴν πόλιν τῆς παρούσης ὑποψίας παῦσαι. 

ὡς χρή follows λέγων, not ἔπεισεν ; ‘the argument by which he 
persuaded him was, that he ought, etc.’ 

εἰ μὴ καί is taken as a transposition of εἰ καὶ yy. It is better to 
say that καί emphasizes δέδρακεν, ‘if he had not really,’ or ‘ actually, 
done it.’ 

ἄδειαν ποιησάμενον, cp. iv. 51, ποιησάμενοι πίστεις, ‘having obtained — 
pledges.’ 


a” 


There can be no doubt that the person who is said by Thucy— mes 
dides to have informed against himself and others in the matters ===> 
of the Hermae was Andocides, whose Oration ‘Concerning thes» << (6. » 
Mysteries,’ as it is called, has been preserved to us. This Orations=« <——™ ‘ 
was delivered in the year 399, sixteen years after the events to which. 5Ξ-» = 
it refers, and had been preceded by another, still extant, under the==> xis 
title ‘Concerning his own return from exile,’ in which eleven yearsa=—= = * 
previously the author had defended himself against similar charges of ® 4“: = 
impiety. In the affair of the mysteries he protests his innocence Ξ: “1 
(De Myst. 10; 29 foll.): in respect to the Hermae he acknowledges == —™ = 
that he was cognizant of the mad freak, but says that he had no <—™ <= 
part in it, having been ill at the time ; and in proof of his asser- _=— 


NOTES, BOOK V1. 373 


tion he declares that the image nearest to the house of his father 
was the only one that remained uninjured (De Myst. 60-64). 

Who was the author of the two outrages was a question not 
cleared up in the age of Thucydides (c. 60 med., fin.), nor likely 
to be cleared up by us. Some ascribed the mutilation of the 
Hermae to Megarian and Corinthian agents, who wanted to stop 
the expedition (Plut. Alcib. xviii.) The ingenuity of some modern 
historians has led them to imagine that, not only was the story 
devised, but the crime actually perpetrated, by the enemies of 
Alcibiades. Of such far-fetched fancies Thucydides knows no- 
thing. On the other hand, he expressly says that the profanation 
was supposed to be part of an oligarchical conspiracy. But how- 
ever natural it may have been that the Athenians, in their sus- 
ceptible state of mind, should have suspected tyranny everywhere, 
it is not easy for us to understand why a conspiracy against the 
State should have been commenced by a profane act, such as 
the mutilation of the Hermae, or the celebration of the mysteries 
in private houses. The most probable explanation is also the 
simplest, viz. that Alcibiades or some of his companions, on more 
than one occasion, never thinking of the consequences, were guilty 
οἵ a profane and drunken frolic (cp. Plat. Symp. 212) and that their 

conduct was interpreted by malice into ‘a conspiracy against the 
State.’ Such, according to Plutarch (1.c.), was the view taken at the 
time by some who appear to have been of the wiser sort at Athens: 
-εξλέχθη μὲν οὖν, ὅτι Κορίνθιοι διὰ τοὺς Συρακοσίους ἀποίκους ὄντας, ὡς 
“«-εἰπισχέσεως ἐσομένης πρὸς τῶν οἰωνῶν ἣ μεταγνώσεως τοῦ πολέμου, ταῦτα 
«ϑράσειαν, οὐ μὴν ἥπτετό γε τῶν πολλῶν οὔθ᾽ οὗτος ὁ λόγος οὔθ' ὁ τῶν 
«σημεῖον δεινὸν εἶναι μηδὲν οἱομένων, ἀλλ᾽ οἷα φιλεῖ φέρειν ἄκρατος ἀκολάσ- 
“=zrer νέων εἰς ὕβριν ἐκ παιδιᾶς ὑποφερομένων. ὀργῇ δ᾽ ἅμα καὶ φόβῳ τὸ 
π- γεγονὸς λαμβάνοντες ὡς ἀπὸ συνωμοσίας ἐπὶ πράγμασι μεγάλοις τετολμη- 
«μένον ἅπασαν ἐξήταζον ὑπόνοιαν πικρῶς ἥ τε βονλὴ συνιοῦσα περὶ τούτων 
«αἱ ὁ δῆμος [ὡς ἐν ὀλίγαις ἡμέραις πολλάκις.---Ἴ Παΐ this extraordinary 
outrage was the result of aristocratic insolence, and therefore likely 
‘to be the more odious to the people, may very well be believed. 

The graphic picture of the misery and despair of the prisoners in 
Andocides, De Myst. 48 foll., agrees with the more unimpassioned 
Narrative of Thucydides. They also agree in their description of 


474 THUCYDIDES. 


the salutary effect which the confession had in calming the excite- 
ment of the city, De Red. 8, De Myst. 36, 66, 68. But the in- 
former is said by Thucydides to have confessed his guilt, whereas 
Andocides maintains his own innocence. His speeches undoubtedly 
show that his conduct, both at the time and afterwards, incurred great 
obloquy: and hence we are led to suspect the truth of his account. 
In De Myst. 52, 53, 67, 68, he protests that no one was put to 
death upon his information; Thucydides implies the opposite. 
And it is not impossible that he may have admitted in 415 what he 
denied in 399. As Professor Jebb remarks (Attic Orators, vol. i. c. 
" iv. vi.), Andocides almost pleads guilty in the first speech (De Red. _ 
δ 7), at any rate he admits a degree of indiscretion. At a later -αν 
period he is making the best defence of himself which he can, at a a> 4 
time when the circumstances were no longer fresh in the memory~ge-—zy 

of Athens, and his former confessions were forgotten. Once he hadE=»_and 
asked to be forgiven a little harm which he had done to the city fomrc—anor 
the sake of a greater good (De Red. 8, 25); now the offence is putz ut 
out of sight, and he has become the benefactor of his country (Dee Ve 
Myst. 56, 59).—The statement that Andocides accused himself ix mac Δ“ 
confirmed, if it be a confirmation, by Plutarch, Alc. xxi. and the» «mame 
oration of the Pseudo-Lysias, c. Andoc. ὃ 62. For some minoc<<—=——™ 
differences from Thucydides see Professor Jebb, Attic Orators a= 
vol. i. p. 121 foll. 

There is also a slight discrepancy between Andocides δὴ» ao 
Plutarch. According to his own account, Andocides was induceh—» —™ - 
to confess by his cousin Charmides (§ 48 foll.): according tox * 
Plutarch (Alc. xxi.), by another fellow-prisoner named Timaeus. 5 

Andocides did not himself inform against Alcibiades. But the” «i . 
supposed success which had attended the efforts of the Demos to<—™” a 
discover the authors of the mutilation of the Hermae delated by “4 - 
Andocides, seems to have encouraged the enemies of Alcibiades == “ἢ 
to proceed against him for profanation of the mysteries. 

A curious and perplexing light is thrown on this period οἵ © — 


£ 


e e . i 

Greek history by the fact, which we learn from Andocides, that —— 5“ 
Peisander was the chief agitator in the whole business (Andocides, — — 
De Myst. § 36), Πείσανδρος καὶ Χαρικλῆς, ὄντες μὲν τῶν ζητητῶν, δο- ~ 
<—_e 


« >» ~ a“ 
κοῦντες δ᾽ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ χρόνῳ εὐνούστατοι εἶναι τῷ δήμῳ, ἔλεγον ὡς εἴη τὰ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 375 


ἔργα τὰ γεγενημένα οὐκ ὀλίγων ἀνδρῶν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ δήμου καταλύσει. 
Cp. also Isocrates, De Bigis (xvi.) 4, dravres γὰρ ἴσασιν ὅτι διὰ τοὺς 
αὐτοὺς ἄνδρας ἥ τε δημοκρατία κατελύθη κἀκεῖνος (scil. Alcibiades) ἐκ τῆς 
πόλεως ἐξέπεσεν. We are also informed by Plutarch that Thessalus 
the son of Cimon was the accuser of Alcibiades (Alc. xix, xxii). 
On this occasion the leaders of the oligarchical party seem to have 
combined with demagogues like Androcles (Thuc. viii. 65 med.). 
Cp. the words of Alcibiades at Sparta (vi. 89 fin.), ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἦσαν καὶ 
éxt τῶν πάλαι καὶ viv, of ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρότερα ἐξῆγον τὸν ὄχλον᾽ οἴπερ καὶ 
ἐμὲ ἐξήλασαν. We cannot be surprised that Thucydides in his 
impersonal manner should have omitted the names of Peisander 
and Thessalus, as he has also omitted that of Andocides. Nor is 
there anything amazing in the fact that an oligarchical faction 
Should use the democracy for its own ends (cp. viii. 48 fin. ποριστὰς 
ὄντας καὶ ἐσηγητὰς τῶν κακῶν τῷ δήμῳ ἐξ ὧν τὰ πλείω αὐτοὺς ὠφελεῖσθαι.) 
But the strangeness is that Peisander, the chief mover in the Athe- 
Yaian ‘ Popish Plot,’ should within four years be himself the first to 
Wromote the return of Alcibiades to Athens, or that Alcibiades 
= hould have been willing to combine with him. Political enmities 
mm Greece were short-lived; but such a reconciliation (transient as 
ἃ t proved, viii. 56 fin., 63 fin.) seems hardly within the limits of 
Bejnuman nature. 


βεβαιοτέραν yap αὐτῷ σωτηρίαν εἶναι ὁμολογήσαντι per’ ἀδείας, ἢ ἀρνη- 60. 3. 
«αὐέντι διὰ δίκης ἐλθεῖν. 
The construction is varied. The infinitive διὰ δίκης ἐλθεῖν, not 
“the participle ἀρνηθέντι, corresponds to the participle ὁμολογήσαντι. 
“We should have expected either ὁμολογῆσαι, or dpynbévre καὶ διὰ 
δίκης ἐλθόντι. Cp. ii. 89 init. ob 8? ἄλλο τι θαρσοῦσιν ἣ διὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ 
πεζῷ ἐμπειρίαν τὰ πλείω κατορθοῦντες, where κατορθοῦντες, not διὰ τὴν 
ἐμπειρίαν, corresponds in sense to & ἄλλο τι. 


καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὸ τῶν ἙἭ ρμῶν govro σαφὲς ἔχειν, πολὺ δὴ μᾶλλον καὶ 61. I. 
τὰ μυστικά, ὧν ἐπαίτιος ἦν, μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς ξυνωμοσίας 
ἐπὶ τῷ δήμῳ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἐδόκει πραχθῆναι. 

ξυνωμοσίας, 1) is governed by λόγου, and the second καί repeats 
the first καί. ‘When they believed themselves to have discovered 


61. 1. 


él. 5. 


61. 6. 7. 


62, 4. 


376 THUCYDIDES. 


the offenders in the affair of the Hermae, much more did the 
profanation of the mysteries also seem to be his act, with the 
same explanation, that this also’ (that is, like the affair of the 
Hermae) ‘was a conspiracy against the people ;’ τῆς ξυνωμοσίας 
referring to the words in c. 60 init. καὶ πάντα αὐτοῖς ἐδόκει ἐπὶ ξυνω- 
μοσίᾳ ὀλιγαρχικῇ καὶ τυραννικῇ πεπρᾶχθαι. 

This is less harsh than 2) supposing ξυνωμοσίας as well as λόγον 
to be governed by μετά, for the two ideas are too disparate. 


εἴρητο δὲ προειπεῖν αὐτῷ ἀπολογησομένῳ ἀκολουθεῖν, ξυλλαμβάνειν δὲ μή, 
θεραπεύοντες τό τε πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ στρατιώτας τε σφετέρους καὶ 
πολεμίους μὴ θορυβεῖν, καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα τοὺς Μαντινέας καὶ ᾿Αργείους βουλόμενοι 
παραμεῖναι, δι᾿ ἐκείνου νομίζοντες πεισθῆναι σφᾶς ξυστρατεύειν. 

θεραπεύοντες is used as though εἰρήκεσαν, not εἴρητο, had preceded. 

τό is to be taken with πρὸς τοὺς στρατιώτας, and not with θορυβεῖν, 
‘with regard to their soldiers in Sicily.’ μὴ θορυβεῖν, scil. αὐτούς, 
‘not to create an agitation, whether among their own soldiers, or 
among their enemies.’ 

πεισθῆναι σφᾶς ~vorparevey. σφᾶς has been suspected by many 
editors. But 1) it may be put, as in Herodotus, for αὐτούς, a usage 
of which some vestiges occur in Thucydides; cp. note on v. 49. 1. 

Or possibly 2) σφᾶς may bear its usual reflexive sense, because 
the Athenian magistrates, who are the subject of the sentence, may 
be regarded as identifying with themselves the Mantineans and 
Argives who have just been described as στρατιώτας σφετέρους. 


ἐπειδὴ ἐγένοντο ἐν Θουρίοις. ἐπεραιώθη ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐκ τῆς Θουρίας. 
Steph. Byz. 8. ν. Θούριοι, πόλις ᾿Ιταλίας... λέγεται καὶ Θουρία, καὶ 
Θούριον. .. τὸ ἐθνικὸν ὁμωνύμως Θούριοι καὶ Θουριακοί, ἐν Θουρίοις May 


refer either to the town or to the people. 


Νικίας δὲ εὐθὺς ἐξ Ὑκκάρων ἐπὶ "Eyéorns παραπλεύσας, καὶ τἄλλα 
χρηματίσας καὶ λαβὼν τάλαντα τριάκοντα παρῆν ἐς τὸ στράτευμα" καὶ 
τἀνδράποδα ἀπέδοσαν, καὶ ἐγένοντο ἐξ αὐτῶν εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν τάλαντα. 

The sentence Νικίας... στράτευμα is really out of place, and may 
be regarded as a note added by way of explanation. After the fall 
of Hyccara the infantry returned through the Sicel country to 
Catana, and the ships went round the island southwards with the 


478 THUCYDIDES. 


63. 2. better sense, is justified by vi. 68 med. πολὺ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν 


? 
εἰναι. 


84. 1. εἰδότες οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως δυνηθέντες [καὶ] εἰ ἐκ τῶν νεῶν πρὸς sapereno™” 
μένους ἐκβιβάζοιεν, ἣ κατὰ γῆν ἰόντες γνωσθείησαν. 
καί, though found in all the MSS., is omitted by Poppo. Bots ¥ 
it is not wholly indefensible if καὶ εἰ, instead of being connected 
with ὁμοίως, be taken as coordinate with ἢ following;=ei ἢ ἐκ τῶν 
νεῶν ἐκβιβάζοιεν, ἣ κατὰ γῆν ἰόντες γνωσθείησαν. For ἐκβιβάζοιεν see 
on v. 98. 


«4 


64. 3. ἔλεγε δὲ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους αὐλίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ὅπλων ἐν τῇ πόλει, καὶ εἰ 
βούλονται ἐκεῖνοι πανδημεὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ῥητῇ ἅμα ἕῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στράτευμα ἐλθεῖν, 
αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀποκλήσειν τοὺς παρὰ σφίσι καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἐμπρήσειν, ἐκείνους δὲ 
ῥᾳδίως τὸ στράτευμα προσβαλόντας τῷ σταυρώματι αἱρήσειν. 

There are some considerable differences of reading, 4) αὐτούς, 
which has the better MS. authority, for τούς; δ) for τῷ σταυρώματι 
the Laurentian and a few less important MSS. read τῷ στρατεύματι. 
If this be accepted, τὸ στράτευμα before mpooBadcvras must be 
omitted, or altered into τὸ σταύρωμα. 

Besides the uncertainty in the reading, there is a seeming if not 
a real inaccuracy in the description. If the Athenians all slept 
within the walls of Catana (ἔλεγε δὲ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους αὐλίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν 
ὅπλων ἐν τῇ πόλει) how could there be any army (στράτευμα) in the 
entrenched camp (σταύρωμα) which the Syracusans were advised to 
attack? Whether we read αὐτούς or τούς the clause ἔλεγε δὲ τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους κιτιλ. iS inconsistent with τὸ στράτευμα «.r.A., the former 
implying that the main body of the Athenians, the latter that only 
a part of them, were in the town. And further, the reading 
αὐτούς is inconsistent with τὸ στράτευμα κιτιλ., and the reading τούς 
with ἔλεγε δέ «.7.A. 

Probably the statement that the Athenians slept within the walls 
is not to be taken literally of all of them. Part took up their 
quarters in the city, and these were to be shut up by the Catanae- 
ans, part remained in the camp, and these the Syracusans would get 
into their hands by taking the palisade. But στράτευμα can hardly 
be used to describe first the Athenian army generally and then the 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 379 


smaller division who remained to guard the camp. It seems better 64. 3. 


to omit τὸ στράτευμα in the second place, supplying τὸ σταύρωμα with 
αἱρήσειν. τὸ στράτευμα, occurring only once, will naturally describe 
the whole Athenian army, whether in the city or in the camp. We 
may either read αὐτούς, or take τοὺς παρὰ σφίσι to mean ‘the Athe- 
nians who were in the city,’ but not with any opposition to 
Athenians outside. 


εἶναι δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς ξυνδράσοντας πολλοὺς Καταναίων, καὶ ἡτοιμάσϑαι 64. 3... 


ἤδη, ἀφ᾽ ὧν αὐτὸς ἥκειν. οἱ δὲ στρατηγοὶ τῶν Συρακοσίων μετὰ τοῦ καὶ és BB. I. 


τὰ ἄλλα θαρσεῖν καὶ εἶναι ἐν διανοίᾳ καὶ ἄνευ τούτων ἰέναι παρεσκευάσθαι 
i Κατάνην κιτὰλ. 
παρεσκευάσθαι seems to be a repetition of ἡτοιμάσθα. As the 
Catanaeans were prepared to receive them, so the Syracusans were 
already eager to have everything ready for the expedition. The 
Perfect may be translated as a present, ‘to have got all things 
ready ’=‘ to have all things in readiness.’ For a similar pleonastic 
description of a fact by the indirect antecedents of it cp. iv. 9 fin. 
ἐπισπάσασθαι αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖτο προθυμήσεσθαι. 
But the sense is not very good, and it has been suggested 
that παρεσκευάσθαι is a gloss on ἡτοιμάσθαι, which has found its way 
into the text. 


καὶ αὐτοὶ (ἤδη γὰρ καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων Σελινούντιοι καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς BB. 1. 


“πταρῆσαν) προεῖπον πανδημεὶ πᾶσιν ἐξιέναι Συρακοσίοις. 

γάρ expresses the reason why at this particular moment the 
Syracusans wanted to go and attack Catana, viz. because their 
forces were now collected. 


ἐξέβαινον ἐς τὸ κατὰ τὸ ᾿Ολυμπειεῖον. 65. 3. 


I. e. at the point of the great harbour just opposite or in a line 
with the temple of Zeus Olympius on the south bank of the river 
Anapus. Cp. vi. 97 init. σχόντες κατὰ τὸν Λέοντα καλούμενον. 


μακρᾶς οὔσης τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῖς. 66. 


The distance from Catana to Syracuse by sea is about thirty 
miles, by land much longer. 


480 THUCYDIDES. 


66.1. ἥκιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ λυπήσειν. 
ἄν with the future infinitive occurs in four other passages of 
Thucydides, ii. 80 fin., v. 82 fin., viii. 25 fin, 71. init. It 13 
therefore unnecessary to alter the reading here. 


66.1. τῇ μὲν yap τειχία re καὶ οἰκίαι εἶργον καὶ δένδρα καὶ λίμνη, παρέα δὶ 
τὸ κρημνοί. 

The Athenians occupied part of a line of low heights reackn1 218 
from the promontory north of the bay of Dascon (now Pisa xaaala 
Caderini) to the temple of Zeus Olympius. They were thus Ρ ΞΕ Ο- 
tected on the right by the cliffs which formed the north-west fam— ce 
of the heights, and on the left by the marsh Cyané, and by που ΞΡ ΕΞ, 
perhaps those in the neighbourhood of the temple (cp. ἡ ἐν —=¥ 
᾿Ολυμπιείῳ πολίχνη, vii. 4 fin.), which was not yet guarded by the 
enemy. The erection of a fort upon the shore of Dascon wa===™5 
intended to protect them against an attack, whether by land ΞΘ 
sea, upon their right flank. 


66.1. παρά τε τὰς vais σταύρωμα ἔπηξαν, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ Δάσκωνι ἔρυμα... — 
ὥρθωσαν x.7.X. 
Δάσκων, either 1)* a bay inside the Great Harbour, cp. Diod. 
Sic. xiii. 13, ὁ yap Εὐρυμέδων... ἀπελήφθη πρὸς τὸν κόλπον τὸν Ado- 
κωνα μὲν καλούμενον, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν Συρακοσίων κατεχόμενον: Χὶν. 72, τὸ 
πρὸς τῷ Δάσκωνι χωρίον: Or 2) a place on the shore of the bay, 
cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Δάσκων, Σικελίας χωρίον" Φίλιστος ἔκτῃ Σικελικῶν, 


εἰς τὸν Πλημμύριον καὶ Δάσκωνα. 


67. 3. μέλλουσι δὲ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις προτέροις ἐπιχειρήσειν ὁ Νικίας κατά τε 
ἔθνη ἐπιπαριὼν ἕκαστα καὶ ξύμπασι τοιάδε παρεκελεύετο. 
ξύμπασι is used as if ἔθνεσιν ἑκάστοις had preceded instead of 
κατὰ ἔθνη ἐπιπαριὼν ἕκαστα, ‘passing along one nation after another, 
and to all, he spoke as follows.’ 


68. 3. παραστήτω δέ τινι καὶ τόδε, πολύ τε ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν εἶναι καὶ πρὸς 
γῇ οὐδεμιᾷ φιλίᾳ, ἥντινα μὴ αὐτοὶ μαχόμενοι κτήσεσθε. 
A topic of encouragement found in Homer, II. xv. 735 foll.— 
ἦέ τινάς φαμεν εἶναι ἀοσσητῆρας ὀπίσσω 


᾿ ἡ ἡ “- a” ο | e 8 . » 
HE TL τεῖχος ἄρειον, ὅ κ᾽ ἀνδράσι λοιγὸν upuvat ; 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 381 


ov μέν τι σχεδόν ἐστι πόλις πύργοις ἀραρυῖα, 68. 3. 
ἧ κ᾽ ἀπαμνναίμεσθ᾽ ἑτεραλκέα δῆμον ἔχοντες" 

ἀλλ’ ἐν γὰρ Τρώων πεδίῳ πύκα θωρηκτάων, 

πόντῳ κεκλιμένοι, ἑκὰς ἥμεθα πατρίδος αἴης " 

τῷ ἐν χερσὶ φόως, οὐ μειλιχίῃ πολέμοιο. 


οἱ μὲν γάρ, ὅτι περὶ πατρίδος ὄσται ὁ ἀγών, ἐγὼ δέ, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν πατρίδι, 8. 2. 
ἐξ ἧς κρατεῖν δεῖ ἢ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἀποχωρεῖν. 
There is a slight irregularity in ἐξ ἧς, the definite antecedent ἐν 
ov πατρίδι having to be supplied from the indefinite οὐκ ἐν πατρίδι. 
Cp. iv. 126 init. of ye μηδὲ ἀπὸ πολιτειῶν τοιούτων ἥκετε, ἐν αἷς οὐ 
πολλοὶ ὀλίγων ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ πλειόνων μᾶλλον ἔλάσσους. 


οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι ἀπροσδόκητοι μὲν ἐν τᾷ καιρῷ τούτῳ ἦσαν ὡς ἤδη Θ9. I. 
μαχούμενοι, καί τινες αὐτοῖς ἐγγὺς τῆς πόλεως οὔσης καὶ ἀπεληλύθεσαν. 

‘ The Syracusans did not expect at that moment that they would 
have to fight immediately.’ In the next clause ἐπεληλύθεσαν is the 
reading of a great majority of MSS., but ἀπεληλύθεσαν is required by 
the context. 


ὅμως δὲ οὐκ ἂν οἱόμενοι σφίσι τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους προτέρους ἐπελθεῖν, καὶ 69. 1. 
διὰ τάχους ἀναγκαζόμενοι ἀμύνασθαι, ἀναλαβόντες τὰ ὄπλα εὐθὺς avremyecay. 

ὅμως refers both to what precedes and to what follows. ‘But never- 
theless, i. e. notwithstanding their want of skill (and) although they 
did not think that the Athenians would be the attacking party,’etc. 


ἔπειτα δὲ ἐν παρέργῳ καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ξυγκαταστρεψαμένοις ῥᾷον αὐτοῖς BO, 3. 
ὑπακούσεται. 

No certain parallel is found for ὑπακούσεται in the passive sense, 
which the meaning of the passage requires here. But the alteration 
Of ὑπακούσεται into ὑπακούσονται (ξυγκαταστρεψάμενοι being read with 
one good MS. Pal.) is too great a departure from the text. And 
there is no reason why ὑπακούσομαι should not, like other future 
middles, στερήσεσθαι, iii. 2 fin., βλάψονται, vi. 64 med., ἀδικήσεσθαι, vi. 
87 med., be used passively, merely because it is the substitute in 
common use for the future active. 


τοὺς δὲ ἀνθεστῶτας πολὺ μείζω ἔκπληξιν μὴ νικωμένους παρέχειν. 70. 1. 
See note on English text. 


482 THUCYDIDES. 


70. 2. παρεῤῥήγνυτο ἤδη καὶ rd ἄλλο στράτευμα τῶν Συρακοσίων. 
See note on v. 73. 1. 


70. 4. οἷ δὲ Συρακόσιοι ἀθροισθέντες ἐς τὴν ᾿Ελωρίνην ὁδὸν καὶ ὡς ἐκ τῶν rae” 
ὄντων ξυνταξάμενοι, ἔς τε τὸ ᾿Ολυμπιεῖον ὅμως σφῶν αὐτῶν παρέπεμψξι."“ “Ὁ 
φυλακήν, δείσαντες κιτιλ, 

Notwithstanding their defeat and confusion, they did not negle=— <_ 
to protect the Olympieum. | 


71. 2. χειμών re γὰρ ἦν, καὶ τὸν πόλεμον αὐτόθεν ποιεῖσθαι οὕπω ἐδόκει Svvat—_— “ 
εἶναι, πρὶν ἂν ἱππέας τε μεταπέμψωσιν ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ed 
ξυμμάχων ἀγείρωσιν, ... τά re ἄλλα, καὶ σῖτον καὶ ὅσων δέοι, παρασκε-“Ξ 
dowvrat, ὡς ἐς τὸ ἔαρ ἐπιχειρήσοντες ταῖς Συρακούσαις. 

καί before σῖτον answers, not to τέ before ἄλλα, which connec 
the whole clause with the preceding part of the sentence, but ΒΒΕΕΝΒΕΟ 
καί before ὅσων δέοι. 


72. 3. τὴν μὲν γὰρ γνώμην αὐτῶν oby’ ἡσσῆσθαι, τὴν δὲ ἀταξίαν βλάψαι. aa --““οὐ 
μέντοι τοσοῦτόν γε λειφθῆναι, ὅσον εἰκὸς εἶναι, ἄλλως τε τοῖς πρώτοις Tava Ὁ» 
Ἑλλήνων ἐμπειρίᾳ, ἰδιώτας ὡς εἰπεῖν χειροτέχναις, ἀνταγωνισαμένους. 

The MSS. all read χειροτέχνας, with three exceptions. In one 
good MS. (Aug.) an « is written over χειροτέχνας, in another (Cl) 
χειροτέχναις is corrected into χειροτέχνας, and in one of less authority, 
(m, Bekker’s G.) χειροτέχναις is inserted in the margin. 


---Ξ 


1) Classen, who defends χειροτέχνας, says that χειροτέχνης in good 
authors means an ordinary working man in contrast to one who 
pursues some higher occupation, as in English we might oppose 
a mere handicraftsman or operative to a soldier. According to 
this rendering the Syracusans are described as common workmen 
(xetporexvas) without military training (ἰδιώτας), opposed to the 
Athenians, who are the first soldiers in Hellas. 

But the word χειροτέχνης is thus taken quite literally and without 
regard to the context, whereas the juxtaposition of ἰδιώτης rather 
suggests 2)* the common opposition between unskilled persons 
and those trained in particular arts (ἰδιῶται and τεχνῖται), The 
word is applied to a skilled physician in Hippocrates, De Vet. Med. 
i. 10 (7), 6 xadetpevos ἰητρὸς καὶ ὁμολογημένως χειροτέχνης, and to a 
skilled soldier in Dion Cassius, who may perhaps be imitating this 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 383 
Be assage, 50. 16, καὶ παντὸς εἴδους μάχης ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον χειροτέχναι ἐστὲ 72. 3. 
«Ξῷοο͵στε καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαντοὺς ἕκαστοι φοβεροὶ τοῖς ἀντιπάλοις εἶναι. 
ἄλλως re, which is equivalent in sense to ἄλλως τε καί, introduces 
=m. new consideration. The participle ἀνταγωνισαμένους agrees with 
the subject of λειφθῆναι, and τέ really connects the clause with the 
receding τὴν δὲ ἀταξίαν βλάψαι, from which, in order to supply a 
2rammatical construction, a suppressed clause such as ἀταξίᾳ βλαφ- 
«θέντας must be understood with λειφθῆναι, ‘considering that they 
mot only were injured by their want of discipline but had to fight 
against the best soldiers in Hellas.’ Or the clause to be supplied 
may be more general, cp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 779, who explains 
the phrase, ‘per se—quod non additum cogitatione suppletur— 
alioque modo.’ Cp. Isocr. Panegyr. (iv.) 73, δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ περὶ 
τῶν πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους τῇ πόλει πεπραγμένων προσήκειν εἰπεῖν, ἄλλως τ᾽ 
ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν λόγον κατεστησάμην περὶ τῆς ἡγεμονίας τῆς ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνους. 
Although the general sense of ἄλλως τε and ἄλλως τε καί is the 
same, it should be observed that the reference in ἄλλως is different. 
ἄλλως τε xai=‘ both for other reasons and because,’ etc. ἄλλως 


te==‘(for various reasons) and in another way, namely, because,’ 
etc. 


ἀνδρείας μὲν σφίσιν ὑπαρχούσης, εὐταξίας δὲ ἐς τὰ ἔργα προσγενομένης 72. 4. 
ἐπιδώσειν γὰρ ἀμφότερα αὐτά. 

‘For both these things would improve,’ not ‘of themselves’ 
(Classen), an explanation which introduces a needless subtlety, 
and is inconsistent with the position of αὐτά. αὐτά, as elsewhere, 
(cp. προορᾶσθαι αὐτά, c. 78 fin. below) Ξε ταῦτα. 


τούς τε στρατηγοὺς καὶ ὀλίγους καὶ αὐτοκράτορας χρῆναι ἑλέσθαι, καὶ 72. 5. 
ὀμόσαι αὐτοῖς τὸ ὅρκιον ἦ μὴν ἐάσειν ἄρχειν ὅπῃ ἂν ἐπίστωνται. 

τὸ ὅρκιον, not ‘the usual oath,’ which would be at variance with 
the context; for Hermocrates is evidently proposing something 
new. The article is explained by the words which immediately 
follow; τὸ épxtov=‘ this oath, namely, that the Syracusans would 
suffer them to command according to the best of their judgment.’ 


ἡμέρας δὲ μείναντες περὶ τρεῖς καὶ δέκα of ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὡς ἐχειμάζοντο καὶ τὰ 74, 2. 


484 THUCYDIDES. ΄ 


14. 2. ἐπιτήδεια οὐκ εἶχον καὶ προὐχώρει οὐδέν, ἀπελθόντες ἐς Νάξον καὶ σταύππαιδβρω,, 

περὶ τὸ στρατόπεδον ποιησάμενοι αὐτοῦ διεχείμαζον. 
ἐς Νάξον καὶ Θρᾷκας σταύρωμα (OF σταυρώματα) is found in m_ <arly 

every MS. Θρᾷκας may be a corruption of χάρακας, and this sammgain 
a gloss on σταύρωμα Or cravpmpara. Classen, following the= in- 
genious suggestion of Pluygers, Mnemos. xi. p. 92, regards Gxgageas 
as a corruption of ὅρια καί (OPIAKAI, @PAIKAC), which may Thave 
been the reading of the Scholiast. Hesychius explains <guor, 
τείχισμα, φραγμόν : also ὅρια, τὰ νεώρι. But both the word andi the 
explanation are too uncertain to justify the conjecture. 


76. With this speech of Hermocrates at Camarina should be cO™m- 
pared his former speech at Gela in the year 424, especially iv- G0, 
61 with vi. 77, 78. 


76.1. Ov τὴν παροῦσαν δύναμιν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ὦ Καμαριναῖοι, μὴ αὑτὴν cae 5." 
πλαγῆτε δείσαντες ἐπρεσβευσάμεθα, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοὺς μέλλοντας ἀπ᾽ αετὖν σὸν 
λόγους, πρίν τι καὶ ἡμῶν ἀκοῦσαι, μὴ ὑμᾶς πείσωσιν. ἥκουσι γὰρ és =P 
Σικελίαν προφάσει μὲν ἡ πυνθάνεσθε, διανοίᾳ δὲ ἣν πάντες ὑπονοοῦμεν. 

γάρ is explanatory of δείσαντες μὴ ὑμᾶς πείσωσιν. ‘For whate= ΠῚ 
they may say, the truth is.’ 


76. 3. τῇ δὲ αὐτῇ ἰδέᾳ ἐκεῖνά re ἔσχον καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε viv πειρῶνται. 
‘On the same principle,’ cp. note on iii. 62. 2. 


76. 3. ἡγεμόνες yap γενόμενοι ἑκόντων τῶν τε ᾿Ιώνων καὶ ὅσοι ἀπὸ σφῶν Oe σι 
ξύμμαχοι ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Μήδου τιμωρίᾳ, τοὺς μὲν λειποστρατίαν, τοὺς dae “- 
ἀλλήλους στρατεύειν, τοῖς δ᾽ ὡς ἑκάστοις τινὰ εἶχον αἰτίαν εὐπρεπῆ ἐπε ey” 
κόντες, κατεστρέψαντο. 


ἀπὸ σφῶν. Either 1)* ‘any who were descended from them aed 


. . . . Ji. 
became their allies,’ for there were such besides the Jonians, c 
) ᾽ 


2 
12 fin. Ἴωνας μὲν ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ νησιωτῶν τοὺς πολλοὺς ᾧκισαν. ΟΥ̓ ) 
᾿ . . . ἜΝ i 
any others who of their own free choice were their allies. 
σφῶν is then merely a variation of ἑκόντων. 
. Α ‘ a ’ ἐς 
The accusatives τοὺς μὲν. . τοὺς δέ are governed by κατ΄ 
Ld ΄ [4 bd e .Φ d 
στρέψαντος. In τοῖς δέ which follows, the construction is chang 
from the accusative to the dative by attraction with ἑκάστοις. - 


» 
ἐπενεγκόντες. 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 385 


To 1) it may be objected that, a great part of the allies not 76, 3. 
being descended from the Athenians, the description is more or 
less inaccurate. This however is not a serious objection. Hermo- 
<rates is the speaker, and the words are intended to put strongly 
tthe guilt of the Athenians. He means to imply that those whom 
they enslaved were their own descendants. 2) again may seem to 
mw-equire the more usual ἑαυτῶν or σφῶν αὐτῶν. Cp. however i. 25 
ned. ἐλθόντες δὲ οἱ Ἐπιδάμνιοι ἐς τὴν Κόρινθον κατὰ τὸ μαντεῖον παρέδοσαν 
“τὴν ἀποικίαν, τόν τε οἰκιστὴν ἀποδεικνύντες σφῶν ἐκ Κορίνθον ὄντα «.1.A.° 
Ri. 65 fin. καὶ οὐ πρότερον ἐνέδοσαν ἣ αὐτοὶ ἐν σφίσι κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας δια- 
«ῥορὰς περιπεσόντες ἐσφάλησαν: vii. 5 init. τοῖς λίθοις χρώμενος obs οἱ 
᾿Αθηναῖοι προπαρεβάλοντο σφίσιν : viii. 10 med. τὰς γὰρ τῶν Χίων ἑπτὰ 
mais ἐν τῷ ἀριθμῷ μετὰ σφῶν ἔχοντες οὐ πιστὰς ἐνόμιζον : vill. 105 med. 
Ξπρὶν οἱ ἸΙελοποννήσιοι.. .. ἤρξαντο μέρει τινι σφῶν ἀτακτότεροι γενέσθαι : 
cp. the ordinary use of the pronoun in the words which immediately 
follow,—yvérres δὲ of περὶ τὸν Θρασύβουλον, ras ἐπὶ σφίσι vais ἐπε- 

χούσας... εὐθὺς ἡμύναντο x.r.A. (See Kriiger, note on ii. 65. 9.) 


ἣ μένομεν ἕως ἂν ἕκαστοι κατὰ πόλεις ληφθῶμεν, εἰδότες, ὅτε ταύτῃ μόνον 77. 2. 
ἁλωτοί ἐσμεν, καὶ ὁρῶντες αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦτο τὸ εἶδος τρεπομένους, ὥστε 
τοὺς μὲν λόγοις ἡμῶν διϊστάναι, τοὺς δὲ ξυμμάχων ἐλπίδι ἐκπολεμοῦν πρὸς 
ἀλλήλους, τοῖς δὲ ὡς ἑκάστοις τι προσηνὲς λέγοντες δύνανται κακουργεῖν. 

τοῦτο τὸ εἶδος, ‘this manner of action,’ cp. note on iii. 62. 2. 

κακουργεῖν stands in a double construction, with δύνανται and with 

ὥστε. Most editors supply λέγειν, not κακουργεῖν, with δύνανται, but 
in that case we should not have expected λέγοντες to come between 
ὡς and δύναντα. The order would have been, τοῖς δὲ ὡς ἑκάστοις τι 
3 ροσηνὲς δύνανται λέγοντες κακουργεῖν, aS in 76. 3, τοῖς δ᾽ ὡς ἑκάστοις 
«ο- ἐπενεγκόντες : see above. ἑκάστοις as well as τοῖς is put in the 
lative after λέγοντες, not in the accusative after κακουργεῖν. For the 
change τοὺς μόν, τοὺς δέ, τοῖς δέ, cp. preceding note. 


ἐνθυμηθήτω ob περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς μᾶλλον, ἐν ἴσῳ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἅμα ἐν τῇ 8. 1. 
«ἐμῇ μαχούμενος, τοσούτῳ δὲ καὶ ἀσφαλέστερον, ὅσῳ οὐ προδιεφθαρμένον 
«ἐμοῦ, ἔχων δὲ ξύμμαχον ἐμέ, καὶ οὔκ ἔρημον, ἀγωνιεῖται' τόν τε ᾿Αθηναῖον 
διὴ τὴν τοῦ Συρακοσίον ἔχθραν κολάσασθαι, τῇ δ᾽ ἐμῇ προφάσει τὴν ἐκείνου 
Φιλίαν οὐχ ἧσσον βεβαιώσασθαι βούλεσθαι. 

VOL. I. cc 


78. 


78. 2. 


78. 4. 


om 
e 


386 THUCYDIDES. 


οὐκ ἔρημον is the reading of all the MSS., ὄρημος being ma erely 
inserted by another hand in three. 

1)* We may substitute ἔρημος, with Bekker. 

Or 2) ἔρημον may refer to the allies of Syracuse (vi. 67 mum ed.), 
But the new thought, ‘ but will have me for his ally, and an _ally 
not destitute of friends,’ could not well be thus incidentally isrztro- 
duced. 

Or 3) ἔρημον may be referred to ἔχων δὲ ξύμμαχον ἐμέ, “Ἐς will 
have me for his friend, and I shall not be left destitute:'—or, “1 
shall be his ally, as he will be mine,’ that is, ‘we shall fox ἃ 
mutual alliance.’ The obscure play of words is in the manner of 
Thucydides. 

Or 4) with ἔρημον may be supplied ἀγῶνα from ἀγωνίσασθαι, Fpsgpget 
being used as in ἐρήμη (δίκη, etc.), though in a different sense. 

τὴν ἐκείνου φιλίαν, lit. ‘is quite as desirous of making sure of his 
friendship’—of course in the bad sense of making the Camarina-<=an 
his subject. We may translate, ‘what he really wants is to ma =ake 
rather too fast a friend of him,’ or ‘establish a friendship νῶι 
him from which he will never free himself,’ or ‘make a friend aomand 
something more of him.’ But it is difficult to reproduce the haat 
expressed irony of the passage. 


οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης δυνάμεως βούλησιν ἐλπίζει. 
The word βούλησιν" 15 emphatic, ‘he hopes for what he wishe. —” 
and his wish is not to be accomplished by the power of man.’ 


apa 
καὶ μάλιστα εἰκὸς ἦν ὑμᾶς, ὦ Καμαριναῖοι, ὁμόρους ὄντας καὶ τὰ Beiep ὧν, 
κινδυνεύσοντας προορᾶσθαι αὐτὰ καὶ μὴ μαλακῶς, ὥσπερ νῦν, ξυμμαχεῖν,« 
αὐτοὺς δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον ἰόντας, ἅπερ, εἰ ἐς τὴν Καμαριναΐαν πρῶτον “Ὁ 
ἀφίκοντο οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, δεόμενοι ἂν ἐπεκαλεῖσθε, ταῦτα ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίον καὶ > 
νῦν παρακελευομένους, ὅπως μηδὲν ἐνδώσομεν, φαίνεσθαι. 
ἅπερ δεόμενοι ἂν ἐπεκαλεῖσθε, ταῦτα παρακελευομένους φαίνεσθαι κιτὰλ., 
‘as you would have been entreating us, so you should now be 
exhorting us, not to give way.’ There is a slight flaw in the double 
reference of the words ὅπως μηδὲν ἐνδώσομεν, which apply better to 
the actual than to the supposed case. They are suitable in the 
mouth of a Camarinaean, encouraging Syracuse by the offer of help, 
when Syracuse has been attacked first; but not equally appropriate 


165) 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 387 


when a Camarinaean is asking help from Syracuse because Camarina 78. 4. 
nas‘been attacked first. 


καὶ δεινὸν εἰ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ καλοῦ δικαιώματος ixomrevovres 79. 2. 
ἀλόγως σωφρονοῦσιν, ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εὐλόγῳ προφάσει τοὺς μὲν φύσει πολεμίους 
βούλεσθε ὠφελεῖν, τοὺς δὲ ἔτι μᾶλλον φύσει ξυγγενεῖς μετὰ τῶν ἐχθίστων 
διαφθεῖραι. 

τὸ ἔργον «.r.A., ‘suspecting that there is no real ground for the 
fair-seeming plea,’ or, in other words, that the appeal to the tie 
of kindred is all a pretence. 

ὑμεῖς εὐλόγῳ προφάσει has been explained, 1) ‘you urging a spe- 
cious pretext,’ i.e. that of your previous alliance with the Athenians. 

But the context seems to require 2)* that evAdy@ should corres- 
pond in meaning to dAdyws. ‘ Whereas the Rhegians act prudently 
(in rejecting the Athenians and Leontines) without being able to 
give a reason for it, you, who have a reason to give for doing the 
same, make friends of your natural enemies, and enemies of those 
who by a nearer tie of nature are your kindred.’ εὐλόγῳ προφάσει is 
loosely connected with the verb, being a dative not of manner but 
of circumstance. Not, ‘ you taking advantage of a plausible ex- 
cuse for accepting the Athenians,’ but, ‘ you having a good reason 
for doing otherwise.’ It might appear unreasonable that the 
Rhegians, who were Jonians, should refuse to join the Athenians ; 
but there was every reason why the Camarinaeans, who were 
Dorians, should not join them. 


ὥστε οὐκ ἀθρόους ye ὄντας εἰκὸς ἀθυμεῖν, ἰέναι δὲ ἐς τὴν ξυμμαχίαν 80, 1. 
γεροθυμότερον. 

With οὐκ εἰκὸς ἀθυμεῖν must be supplied in sense ἡμᾶς, with ἰέναι, 
tpas (Classen). 

ἰέναι ἐς τὴν ξυμμαχίαν. The Camarinaeans were already allies of 
the Syracusans, and had sent a few men to their aid (c. 67 fin.), 
but they did not enter heartily into the alliance, and were disposed 
to wait upon fortune. ἰέναι ἐς τὴν ξυμμαχίαν must therefore mean 
‘enter into the alliance,’ in the sense, not of joining a new alliance, 
but of taking a more energetic part in an old one. Cp. μὴ μαλακῶς, 
ὥσπερ viv, ξυμμαχεῖν, Cc. 78 fin. ἰέναι is dependent upon εἰκός, detached 

cc2 


488 THUCYDIDES. 


80. 1. from οὐκ ἀθρόους ye ὄντας elds. προθυμότερον may be taken ecitcsimimther 
1) as a resolved comparative, cp. note on ii. 40. 1, ‘there is no 
reason why you should despair, but there is a reason why inst—— ead 
of despairing you should enter into the alliance heartily,’ (in wkK-—mmich 
case the clause=paAov δὲ idva ἐς τὴν ξυμμαχίαν προθύμωε); ο΄ 2) 
‘you should enter into it more heartily than you do.’ In eit Ther 
case the general sense is the same. 


80. 2. οὐ yap ἔργῳ ἴσον, ὥσπερ τῷ δικαιώματί ἐστιν. 
‘For this course (τὸ μηδετέροις βοηθεῖν) is not impartial in facta. = 
it is in the statement of right,’ i.e. in the abstract. 


80. 5. σκοπεῖτε οὖν καὶ αἱρεῖσθε ἤδη ἣ τὴν αὐτίκα ἀκινδύνως δουλείαν, ἣ “»-- ὃν 
περιγενόμενοι μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τούσδε τε μὴ αἰσχρῶς δεσπότας λαβεῖν, καὶ - 
πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔχθραν μὴ ἂν βραχεῖαν γενομένην διαφυγεῖν. 

dy, in κἂν before περιγενόμενοι, is to be taken with δεσπότας Aer Ce 
διαφυγεῖν, not ‘subjection,’ ‘escape,’ but ‘the chance’ or ‘dang™ 
of subjection,’ ‘the hope of escape.’ 


Bi’ 
82. 2. τὸ μὲν οὖν μέγιστον ὕριον αὐτὸς εἶπεν, ὅτι οἱ Ἴωνες ἀεί ποτε πολέμιοι!" 
ey μαρτυρ ᾽ 


τοῖς Δωριεῦσίν εἰσιν. ἔχει δὲ καὶ οὕτως ἡμεῖς γὰρ ϊωνες ὄντες Meho—— e 

ποννησίοις Δωριεῦσι καὶ πλείοσιν οὖσι καὶ παροικοῦσιν ἐσκεψάμεθα ὅτῳ <= 

τρόπῳ ἥκιστα αὐτῶν ὑπακουσόμεθα. 2? 
ἔχει δὲ καὶ οὕτως is not ‘ put for καὶ ἔχει δὲ οὕτως, but καί emphasizes 

οὕτως. ‘And it is even’ or ‘exactly so.’ ye 
αὐτῶν is the genitive after ὑπακουσόμεθα, and is the resumption of <4 

Πελοποννησίοις, which is a dative of relation, and not governed by _ 


ὑπακουσόμεθα. ‘For we Ionians, having regard to the Peloponne- 
sians who are Dorians, and more numerous than we,’ etc. 


82. 3. αὐτοὶ δὲ τῶν ὑπὸ βασιλεῖ πρότερον ὄντων ἡγεμόνες καταστάντες οἰκοῦμεν, 
νομίσαντες ἥκιστ᾽ ἂν ὑπὸ Πελοποννησίοις οὕτως εἶναι, δύναμιν ἔχοντες ἣ 
ἀμυνούμεθα, καί, ἐς τὸ ἀκριβὲς εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲ ἀδίκως καταστρεψάμενοι τούς 
τε [ωνας καὶ νησιώτας obs ξυγγενεῖς φασὶν ὄντας ἡμᾶς Συρακόσιοι δεδου- 
λῶσθαι. 

αὐτοὶ δέ κιτιλ, ‘Being once established as chiefs of the king’s 
fmrmer subjects, remain in that position:’ οἰκοῦμεν is a more 


a 8 ’ 
" ἐσμέν. 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 389 


καὶ... οὐδὲ ἀδίκως καταστρεψάμενοι is connected with νομίσαντες κιτιλ., 82. 3. 
to which δύναμιν ἔχοντες is subordinate, being the explanation of 
οὕτως. οὐδέ qualifies 1)* ἀδίκως καταστρεψάμενοι, ‘and, to speak 
plainly, neither was there any injustice in their subjugation,’ or 2) 
ἀδίκως only, ‘and, on the strictest principles, their subjugation was 
no more unjust than it was inexpedient.’ 


καὶ οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν ἀποστάντες τὰ οἰκεῖα φθεῖραι, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς ἐκλιπόντες 82, 4. 
τὴν πόλιν, δουλείαν δὲ αὐτοί τε ἐβούλοντο καὶ ἡμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπενεγκεῖν. 
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἄξιοί τε ὄντες ἅμα ἄρχομεν, ὅτι τε ναυτικὸν πλεῖστόν τε καὶ 88. I. 
προθυμίαν ἀπροφάσιστον παρεσχόμεθα ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, καὶ διότι καὶ τῷ 
Μήδῳ ἑτοίμως τοῦτο δρῶντες οὗτοι ἡμᾶς ἔβλαπτον, ἅμα δὲ τῆς πρὸς 
Πελοποννησίους ἰσχύος ὀρεγόμενοι. 

τὸ αὐτό, 5.1], δουλείαν. Cp. note on ili, 47. 5. 

ἅμα δέ answers to ἄξιοί τε ὄντες, and καὶ διότι to ὅτι τε. 

τοῦτο may refer either 1)* to δουλείαν above, τοῦτο δρῶντες Ξε δου- 
λεύοντες, OF 2) to some general idea to be gathered from the 
words immediately preceding, προθυμίαν ἀπροφάσιστον παρεσχόμεθα, 
‘doing the like for the Persian,’ i.e. serving the interests of the 
Persian as we served the interests of the Hellenes. 

καί after diors may be taken either 1) with the whole clause, 
which it contrasts with the preceding clause, ‘because we were 
fighting in the cause of liberty, whereas they, being the willing 
slaves of the Persian, were doing us a mischief,’ or 2) with τῷ Μήδῳ, 
‘of the very Persian with whom we were fighting our battles.’ 


4 3 


καὶ οὐ καλλιεπούμεθα, ὡς ἢ τὸν βάρβαρον μόνοι καθελόντες εἰκότως 83, 2. 
ἄρχομεν κιτὰλ. 

ov καλλιεπούμεθα, which is the true reading, and is found in some 
MSS., has been corrupted in the majority, including the best, into 
οὐκ ἄλλο, OF οὐκ ἄλλῳ, ἑπόμεθα. 


καὶ νῦν τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀσφαλείας ἕνεκα καὶ ἐνθάδε παρόντες ὁρῶμεν καὶ 88. 2. 
ὑμῖν ταῦτα ξυμφέροντα. 

Reading 1) ταῦτα, ‘ the purpose for which we come,’ understood 
from ἐνθάδε παρόντες, or 2) ταὐτά, ‘that the same things are expedient 
for us both.’ Cp. i. 124 init. εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταῦτα ξυμφέροντα 


390 THUCYDIDES. 


83. 3. καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι κιτιλ., where a similar appeal is made 
to community of interest, and where there is a similar doubt about 
the reading. 


84.3. ὁ Xadkideds... ξύμφορος ἡμῖν ἀπαράσκενος ὧν καὶ χρήματα pow 
φέρων. 
Contributing money, and not, like Chios and at the beginning 
of the war Lesbos, ships. 


85. 1. ἀνδρὶ δὲ τυράννῳ ἣ πόλει ἀρχὴν ἐχούσῃ οὐδὲν ἄλογον & τι ξυμφέρον- 
For ἀνδρὶ δὲ τυράννῳ x... cp. ἰΪ. 63 med. ὡς τυραννίδα γὰρ ἤδη ἔχετε 
(τὴν ἀρχήν) : iii, 37 init. οὐ σκοποῦντες ὅτι τυραννίδα ἔχετε τὴν ἀρχῇ" 
for οὐδὲν ἄλογον «.7.A. Cp. ν. 89 δίκαια μὲν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ᾿Ξ: 
τῆς ἴσης ἀνάγκης κρίνεται, δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προὔχοντες πράσσουσι, καὶ 
ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσι : and for the general tenour of the argumeso™™” 
the speech of the Athenians at Sparta, i. 73-78. 


85. 3. ὥστε καὶ τἀνθάδε εἰκὸς πρὸς τὸ λυσιτελοῦν καὶ ὃ λέγομεν ἐς υρακοσώκ 
δέος καθίστασθαι. 
The reference is to c. 83 fin. εἰρήκαμεν. .. τὰ ἐνθάδε διὰ τὸ aE” χε 
(scil. δέος) ἥκειν μετὰ τῶν φίλων ἀσφαλῶς καταστησόμενοι.: The relative ΄“ «5 
clause ὃ λέγομεν, 1) follows the article=«xal πρὸς τὸ δέος ὃ λέγομεν, OF ἴά os” 


ol 


2) ὃ λέγομεν may refer to the whole clause, ‘as we say,’ ==0s λέγομεν. “΄ 
a 
86.1. καὶ ὅτῳ ταῦτα μὴ δοκεῖ, αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον edeyxe’ τὸ γὰρ πρότερον ἡμᾶς 2 - 
ἐπηγάγεσθε οὐκ ἄλλον τινὰ προσείοντες φόβον ἥ, εἰ περιοψόμεθα ὑμᾶς "» 
ὑπὸ Συρακοσίοις γενέσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ κινδυνεύσομεν. καὶ νῦν οὐ δίκαιον, < 2 
ᾧπερ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἠξιοῦτε λόγῳ πείθειν, τῷ αὐτῷ ἀπιστεῖν, οὐδ᾽, ὅτι δυνάμει a 
μείζονι πρὸς τὴν τῶνδε ἰσχὺν πάρεσμεν, ὑποπτεύεσθαι, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον 
τοῖσδε ἀπιστεῖν. = 
αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον x.r.d., ‘the fact convicts him,’ i. 6. the fact which the 1 


speaker is just going to mention, that the fear of Syracuse had 
induced the other cities of Sicily to invite the Athenians. 

δυνάμει μείζονι πρὸς τὴν τῶνδε ἰσχύν. 1) These words might of 
themselves mean, ‘with a force disproportioned to the strength 
of Syracuse :’ a thought which has already been expressed by 
Thucydides himself, vi. 31 fin. καὶ ὁ στόλος οὐχ ἧσσον τόλμης τε 
θάμβει καὶ ὄψεως λαμπρότητι περιβόητος ἐγένετο ἣ στρατιᾶς πρὸς οὖς 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 391 


ἐπύεσαν ὑπερβολῃῆ. But this interpretation is inconsistent with the 66. 1. 
context. Admitting that Thucydides is not always exact in 
rhetorical proprieties (cp. note on c. 87. 4 infra), yet such a 
thought would not be suggested by an orator whose object was 
to minimize rather than to magnify the power of Athens. Cp. 
wide δὲ οὐ στρατοπέδῳ, πόλει δὲ μείζονι τῆς ἡμετέρας παρουσίας ἐποικοῦντες 
ὑμῖν ἀεί τε ἐπιβουλεύουσι κιτ.λ. just below. 

It is better therefore 2)* to take μείζονε in the sense of ‘ greater 
than before.’ The words are closely connected with the preced- 
ing sentence, which refers to the earlier Athenian expedition, τὸ — 
yap πρότερον ἡμᾶς ἐπηγάγεσθε.... καὶ νῦν ov δίκαιον «rd. Cp. iv. 1 
init. of μὲν Συρακόσιοι. .. φοβούμενοι τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους μή... wore σφίσι 
μείζονι παρασκευῇ ἐπέλθωσιν. 

μείζονι πρὸς τὴν τῶνδε ἰσχύν, ‘greater than before, so as to be 
proportioned to their strength,’ a condensed argument excusing 
the magnitude of the armament by the power of Syracuse with 
which it had to cope. 


εἴ τε καὶ γενόμενοι κακοὶ κατεργασαίμεθα x.1.X. 86. 3. 
Scil. τὴν Σικελίαν, ‘and if we should turn rascals and conquer 
Sicily,’ a mocking answer to the insinuations of Hermocrates, c. 76, 
77 supra, and 80 med. τοὺς δὲ οὐκ ἐκωλύσατε κακοὺς γενέσθαι (Classen). 


ἀεί τε ἐπιβουλεύουσι, καὶ ὅτ᾽ ἂν καιρὸν λάβωσιν ἑκάστου οὐκ ἀνιᾶσιν" 8B. 3. 
(ἔδειξαν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἤδη καὶ τὰ ἐς Acovrivous). 

ἑκάστου, either 1) neuter, ‘ for making their several attempts,’ or 
2) masculine, ‘of attacking each individual state.’ The latter 
agrees better with the words which follow. 

ἔδειξαν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα x.r.X., either 1) ‘ they have given other proofs,’ = 
ἄλλα δείγματα ἔδειξαν, or better 2) taking ἔδειξαν absolutely, and ἄλλα 
as the remote accusative, ‘in other ways they have given proof,’ 


ἣν εἰ τῷ ὑπόπτῳ ἢ ἄπρακτον ἐάσετε ἀπελθεῖν ἣ καὶ σφαλεῖσαν, ἔτι 86, 5. 
βουλήσεσθε καὶ πολλοστὸν μόριον αὐτῆς ἰδεῖν, ὅτε οὐδὲν ἔτι περανεῖ 
παραγενόμενον ὑμῖν. 

This is the rhetorical answer to Hermocrates’ words in c. 78 
med. καὶ εἰ γνώμῃ ἁμάρτοι, τοῖς αὑτοῦ κακοῖς ὀλοφυρθεὶς τάχ᾽ ἂν ἴσως καὶ 
τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ποτε βουληθείη αὖθις φθονῆσαι. 


392 THUCYDIDES. ‘ 


«ἃ 

86.5. ὅτε οὐδὲν ἔτι περανεῖ is a reflection of the Athenians, not a part of FS st 
the wish attributed to the Camarinaeans. There would be no fore “Ὁ oO 
in saying, ‘you will wish to have an army at a time when you = Q 
know it will be of no use to you;’ ὅτεξε΄ but then it will be of no on 
use to you.’ 

87. 4. ἐν παντὶ yap πᾶς χωρίφ καὶ ᾧ μὴ ὑπάρχομεν ὅ τε οἰόμενος ἀδικήσεσθαι καὶ ὁ d : 
ἐπιβουλεύων διὰ τὸ ἑτοίμην ὑπεῖναι ἐλπίδα τῷ μὲν ἂἀντιτυχεῖν ἐπικουρίας ἀφ᾽ “a 
ἡμῶν, τῷ δὲ ef ἥξομεν ph ἀδεεῖς εἶναι κινδυνεύειν, ἀμφότεροι ἀναγκάζονται ὩΣ 

5. ὁ μὲν ἄκων σωφρονεῖν, ὁ δ' ἀπραγμόνως σώζεσθαι. ταύτην οὖν τὴν κοινὴν = 
τῷ τε δεομένῳ καὶ ὑμῖν viv παροῦσαν ἀσφάλειαν μὴ ἀπώσησθε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξισώ- _ 
σαντες τοῖς ἄλλοις μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῖς Συρακοσίοις ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ φυλάσσεσθαι a 
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαί ποτε ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου μεταλάβετε. 

ἀντιτυχεῖν. ἀντι-, not ‘against the enemy,’ but ‘in redress of the =>, 
wrong. 
μὴ ἀδεεῖς εἶναι κινδυνεύειν, either 1) ‘that they will not be without te, 


fear of danger:’ κινδυνεύειν being the remote object of the verbal Lex, 
idea contained in ἀδεεῖς, and nearly equivalent to τοῦ κινδυνεύειν: 
or 2) taking κινδυνεύειν in a sense nearly akin to the Platonic, ‘ that 
they are likely to have reason for fear.’ But κινδυνεύειν is not used Fy 
in this sense by Thucydides, except perhaps in iv. 117 fin. τοῖς δ “gg y 
ἐκ τοῦ ἴσον ἀμυνόμενοι κινδυνεύειν καὶ κρατήσειν, where the meaning 15 z=#% j, 
doubtful, see note. In either case ἀδεεῖς, though in the plural, refers 22-2 τῖς 
to τῷ δέ preceding. 

ἀναγκάζονται is applicable properly to the first member of the =»«Zhe 
following clause, improperly to the second. But the emphatic 5» tic 
position of ἀμφότεροι shows that this experiment in language was 4.53 5 
intentional. 

The orator has now passed on to a new point not quite con- — = ™- 
sistent with the preceding. a) Athens is not strong enough todo «<=> Yo 
the Sicilians any harm, 4) Athens is always at hand, powerful to «3» 
redress their wrongs. 

τοῖς ἄλλοις, scil. those of the Sicilians who had joined Athens. 

ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου, ‘so as to put yourselves on a level with Syracuse.’ 

καὶ ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαι, ‘to plot in return against them, as they have 
plotted against you.’ Cp. iii. 12 fin. εἰ yap δυνατοὶ ἦμεν ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου 


. 2 ~ ν 9 a Ν᾿ ¢ « » ~ ef { > δ» ¢ 
καὶ avremtBovdevoat καὶ ἀντιμελλῆσαι, τί ἔδει ἡμᾶς ἐκ TOU ὁμοίου ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνοις 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 393 


εἶναι; and for the use of ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαι cp. i. 33 fin. ἡμέτερον δ᾽ ad 87. 4. 5. 
ἔργον προτερῆσαι.... καὶ προεπιβουλεύειν αὐτοῖς μᾶλλον ἣ ἀντεπιβουλεύειν. 
Where however ἀντεπιβουλεύειν, being contrasted with προεπιβουλεύειν, 
is represented as an undesirable, not as here a desirable, state. 

μεταλάβετε may be 1) ‘ take up a new policy,’ cp. vi. 18 med. εἰ 
μὴ καὶ τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα ἐς τὸ ὁμοῖον μεταλήψεσθε : 2) ‘share with the 
Syracusans in a policy of aggression ;᾿ 3) ‘share with our other 
allies in a policy of active defence.’ In the and case pera- is a 
repetition of ἀντι- in ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαι and of ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου, in the 3rd 
Of ἐξισώσαντες τοῖς ἄλλοις. 


of δὲ Καμαριναῖοι ἐπεπόνθεσαν τοιόνδε' τοῖς μὲν ᾿Αθηναίοις εὖνοι ἦσαν, 88. 1. 
πλὴν καθ᾽ ὅσον εἰ τὴν Σικελίαν ὥοντο αὐτοὺς δουλώσεσθαι, τοῖς δὲ Συρακο- 
σίοις ἀεὶ κατὰ τὸ ὅμορον διάφοροι. 

πλὴν καθ᾽ ὅσον εἰ... ὥοντο would be more naturally expressed 
πλὴν εἴ τι govro, εἰ adds ἃ further qualification to πλὴν καθ᾽ ὅσον 
govro, ‘in so far as the Camarinaeans thought, if they did think,’ 
or ‘in as far as they may have thought, that the Athenians were 
going to enslave Sicily.’ No exact parallel is quoted for this use 
of καθ᾽ ὅσον ei. But such a pleonasm or reduplication, (cp. v. 76 fin. 
δύο λόγω... τὸν μέν, καθ᾽ ὅ τι εἰ βούλονται πολεμεῖν, τὸν δ᾽, ὡς εἰ εἰρήνην 
ἄγειν.) is more probable than the insertion, in all the MSS. (except 
a bad one (Lugd.) which reads «xai) of εἰ, which Reiske here pro- 
poses to omit. 


καὶ of μὲν πρὸς τὰ πεδία μᾶλλον τῶν Σικελῶν ὑπήκοοι ὄντες τῶν Συρακο- 88. 4. 
σίων οἱ πολλοὶ ἀφεστήκεσαν᾽ τῶν δὲ τὴν μεσόγαιαν ἐχόντων αὐτόνομοι οὖσαι 
καὶ πρότερον ἀεὶ [ai] οἰκήσεις εὐθύς, πλὴν ὀλίγοι, μετὰ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἦσαν. 

ἀφεστήκεσαν, ‘had taken their stand aloof,’ i.e. stood aloof. 
Cp. vii. 7 med. ἀφεστήκει τοῦ πολέμου. That the word cannot 
mean ‘had revolted,’ is shown a) by the opposition of the follow- 
ing clause, τῶν δὲ τὴν μεσόγαιαν κιτιλ., ὁ) by the comparison of vi. 
103 med.: for there many of the Sicels are described as revolting 
from Syracuse for the first time. οἱ πολλοί has been corrected into 
ov πολλοί, but the emendation is unnecessary, and not of μέν but the 
gen. τῶν μὲν πρὸς τὰ πεδία «.7.d., WOuld be required with οὐ πολλοί, 
though the nom. οἱ μέν may stand with οἱ πολλοί, 


494 THUCYDIDES. 


88. 4. οἰκήσεις, ‘settlements,’ lit. dwelling-places, as in i. 6 init. διὰ ras 
ἀφράκτους οἰκήσεις : Plato, Laws, 681 A, τῶν οἰκήσεων τούτων μειζόνων 
αὐξανομένων ἐκ τῶν ἐλαττόνων καὶ πρώτων. Bekker inserts the article 
before οἰκήσεις, which then governs τῶν... ἐχόντων. But there still 
remains an awkwardness in the expression al οἰκήσεις μετὰ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων 
ἦσαν. It is better a) with the MSS. to omit the article; δ) to govern 
the genitive τῶν... ἐχόντων by the words εὐθὺς πλὴν ὀλίγοι, ‘at once 
all but a few of the inland people ; (πλὴν ὀλίγοι τ΄ most,’ πάντες πλὴν 
ὀλίγοι); and c) to take αὐτόνομοι... οἰκήσεις either as a nominative 
absolute, or in apposition with the main subject, ‘nearly all of 
those who inhabited the mainland, having been always independent 
settlements, joined the Athenians.’ 


89.2. τῶν δ᾽ ἡμῶν προγόνων τὴν προξενίαν ὑμῶν κατά τι ἔγκλημα ἀπειπόν- 
των K.T.A. 
ἡμῶν, the reading of all the MSS., has been altered, perhaps with 
reason, by Haacke, into ἐμῶν. 


89. 3. καὶ νῦν, εἴ τις καὶ τότε ἐν τῷ πάσχειν οὐκ εἰκότως ὠργίζετό μοι, μετὰ 
τοῦ ἀληθοῦς σκοπῶν ἀναπειθέσθω. 


καί is to be taken with εἰ, not with τότε. 


89. 4. τοῖς yap τυράννοις ἀεί ποτε διάφοροί ecpev’ πᾶν δὲ τὸ ἐναντιούμενον 
τῷ δυναστεύοντι δῆμος ὠνόμασται καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνου ξυμπαρέμεινεν ἡ προ- 
στασία ἡμῖν τοῦ πλήθους. 

The championship of the people remained in the family of 
Alcibiades either 1) because, like the Lacedaemonians, they were 
always the enemies of tyrants, or 2) because the two ideas of enmity 
to tyrants, and sympathy with the people, were inseparable : for it is 
not clear whether ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου refers to the first or to the second 
clause. Ifto the first only, the second is parenthetical, and sup- 
plies a link in the argument. Or 3) ἀπ᾽ éxeivov may refer to both 
the previous clauses. ‘And for that reason,’ i.e. ‘ because from 
time immemorial we have been adverse to tyrants, and the ad- 
versaries of tyrants are always called the popular party, our family 
have always been the leaders of the people.’ 


89. 56. ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἦσαν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πάλαι καὶ νῦν, οἱ ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρότερα ἐξῆγον 


“ὦ 4 ᾿ 
τὸν ὄχλον᾽ οἴἶπερ καὶ ἐμὲ ἐξήλασαν. 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 395 


Not merely members of the ‘high aristocratical party’ (Arnold), 89. 5. 
such as Thessalus the son of Cimon, who is said by Plutarch 
to have accused Alcibiades (Alc. xix. xxi.), but Peisander, Charicles 
(Andoc. De Myst. (i) 36), Androcles (Thuc. viii. 65 med.); and, in 
former times, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, Cleon. 


ἡμεῖς δὲ τοῦ ξύμπαντος προέστημεν, δικαιοῦντες, ἐν ᾧ σχήματι μεγίστη 89. 6. 
ἡ πόλις ἐτύγχανε καὶ ἐλευθερωτάτη οὖσα, καὶ ὅπερ ἐδέξατό τις, τοῦτο ξυν- 
διασώζειν (ἐπεὶ δημοκρατίαν ye καὶ ἐγεγνώσκομεν οἱ φρονοῦντές τι, καὶ αὐτὸς 
οὐδενὸς ἄν χεῖρον, ὅσῳ καὶ λοιδορήσαιμι’ ἀλλὰ περὶ ὁμολογουμένης ἀνοίας 
οὐδὲν ἂν καινὸν λέγοιτο") καὶ τὸ μεθιστάναι αὐτὴν οὐκ ἐδόκει ἡμῖν ἀσφαλὲς 
εἶναι, ὑμῶν πολεμίων προσκαθημένων. 

For ὅσῳ without μᾶλλον cp. infra c. 92 fin. ὅσῳ τὰ μὲν Ἀθηναίων 
oida, τὰ δ᾽ ὑμέτερα ἥκαζον. Cp. also v. 90,108. With λοιδορήσαιμι, 
ἄν must be supplied from οὐδενὸς ἂν χεῖρον (scil. γιγνώσκοιμι). 

καὶ τὸ μεθιστάναι κιτλ, καί goes back to τοῦτο ξυνδιασώζειν. ἐπεὶ 
δημοκρατίαν. .. καινὸν λέγοιτο is parenthetical. 


ei μὴ ποιήσετε τάδε ἐν τάχει, στρατιάν τε ἐπὶ νεῶν πέμψετε... καὶ ἄνδρα Ol. 4. 
Σπαρτιάτην ἄρχοντα. 

τέ is to be taken with καί following; πέμψετε «.r.A. is an explana- 
tion of ποιήσετε τάδε, and there is an asyndeton similar to that 
in ii. 60 med. καὶ μὴ ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς Bpare,... τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς σωτηρίας 
ἀφίεσθε. 


οἷς τε γὰρ ἡ χώρα κατεσκεύασται τὰ πολλὰ πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὰ μὲν ληφθέντα 91. 7. 
τὰ δ᾽ αὐτόματα ἥξει. 
I.e. the slaves, of whom more than 20,000 deserted, vii. 27 fin. 
Cp. Aristoph. Clouds, 5,— 
of δ᾽ οἰκέται ῥέγκουσιν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν πρὸ τοῦ. 
ἀπόλοιο δῆτ᾽, ὦ πόλεμε, πολλῶν οὕνεκα, 


ὅτ᾽ οὐδὲ κολάσ᾽ ἔξεστί μοι τοὺς οἰκέτας. 


καὶ ὅσα ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ δικαστηρίων νῦν ὠφελοῦνται εὐθὺς ἀποστερήσονται, 91. 1. 
μάλιστα δὲ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ξυμμάχων προσόδου ἧσσον διαφορουμένης. 

δικαστηρίων. While the citizens were constantly on active service 
and the country was deserted (vii. 28 init.) there would be less 


.91. 7. 


92. 4. 


92. 4. 


93. 2. 


396 THUCYDIDES. 


litigation ; thus the state would lose a portion of the deposits= and 


fines. 
διαφορουμένης, either 1) being brought at regular intervals, <r 2) 
being brought to Athens, δια- meaning ‘ from place to place.’ 


τό τε φιλόπολι οὐκ ἐν ᾧ ἀδικοῦμαι ἔχω, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾧ ἀσφαλῶς emoreau 
οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ πατρίδα οὖσαν ἔτι ἡγοῦμαι νῦν ἰέναι, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τὴν Om 


οὖσαν ἀνακτᾶσθαι. 


ἐν ᾧ, ‘in that,’ like ἐν τούτῳ, ‘herein.’ a 
Alcibiades is not saying that he was once a patriot and hadno~ .ι 
ceased to be one, but he claims or pretends to be still a pao 


whose recollections are not of his wrongs but of the privileges™ 
and security which he desires to recover. It is therefore unnecessary ~*) 
to supply, after ἀλλά, εἶχον from ἔχω. 

πατρίδα οὖσαν. Alcibiades is answering the objection that he, < 


ar . me 

who was once a patriot, is now the enemy of his country: he © ae 

answers that it is not his country, and that he is seeking to make =~ 
it his country. 

< © 


καὶ φιλόπολις οὗτος ὀρθῶς, οὐχ ὃς ἂν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀδίκως ἀπολέσας μὴ ἐπίῃ, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὃς ἂν ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου διὰ τὸ ἐπιθυμεῖν πειραθῇ αὑτὴν ἀναλαβεῖν. 

This argument is repeated by Isocrates in his speech written on =? 
behalf of the younger Alcibiades, De Bigis (xvi) 14 [0]. Heurges, <= 
ex parte fairly enough, that Alcibiades, in attacking his country “40 
when an exile, only did what the judges themselves had done when © ™ 
the city was in the hands of the Thirty. Cp. Xen. Hell.i.4.15, « Φ, 
17, who tells us what was said by one part of Athens, and by ““& 
another part of Athens, on his return from exile in 407 :---ἐν ¢ = 
χρόνῳ, ὑπὸ ἀμηχανίας δουλεύων, ἠναγκάσθη μὲν θεραπεύειν τοὺς ἐχθίστους, «) 
κινδυνεύων ἀεὶ παρ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀπολέσθαι" τοὺς δὲ οἰκειοτάτους, πολίῖτος 25 
τε καὶ ξυγγενεῖς, καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἅπασαν ὁρῶν ἐξαμαρτάνουσαν, οὐκ εἶεν “““ 
ὅπως ὠφελοίη, φυγῇ ἀπειργόμενος. .. οἱ δὲ (ἔφασαν), ὅτι τῶν παροιχομένων - 
αὐτοῖς κακῶν μόνος αἴτιος εἴη, τῶν τε φοβερῶν ὄντων τῇ πόλει γενέσθαι μόνος 


κινδυνεύσαι ἡγεμὼν καταστῆναι. 


καὶ Τύλιππον τὸν Κλεανδρίδου προστάξαντες ἄρχοντα τοῖς Συρακοσίοις, 
ἐκέλευον pet ἐκείνων καὶ τῶν Κορινθίων βουλευόμενον ποιεῖν ὅπη ἐκ τῶν 


id A ld , 9 s oe φ΄ι > ~ 
παρόντων μάλιστα καὶ τάχιστά τις ὠφελία ἥξει τοῖς ἐκεῖ. 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 397 


There is a confusion in the words τοῖς Συρακοσίοις, which mean, 93. 2. 
a) the Syracusan people, of whom Gylippus was appointed com- 
mander, 4) the Syracusan envoys with whom he was to act (per’ 
ἐκείνων). Cp. i. 100 fin. ἐπὶ δὲ Στρυμόνα πέμψαντες μυρίους οἰκήτορας 
αὑτῶν καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων... τῶν μὲν ᾽᾿ἜἘννέα ᾿υδῶν αὐτοὶ ἐκράτησαν, "" 


προελθόντες δὲ... διεφθάρησαν ἐν Δραβήσκῳ τῇ ᾿Ηδωνικῇ. 


καὶ 6 Θεσπιέων δῆμος ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ θέρει οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἐπιθέμενος τοῖς θὅ. 2. 
τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν οὐ κατέσχεν, ἀλλά, βοηθησάντων Θηβαίων, οἱ μὲν ξυνεληφ- 
θησαν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐξέπεσον ᾿Αθήναζε. 

οὐ κατέσχεν, 5011. ὃ ἐβούλετο, to be supplied from the previous 
words, ‘did not succeed in their design.’ 

Θηβαίων, though the majority of MSS. read ᾿Αθηναίων, is clearly 
required by the sense. For, although the Thespians might have 
been assisted by the Athenians, such a circumstance would not | 
be mentioned incidentally, and they certainly were not driven 
out in consequence of receiving such assistance, as the order of 
the words would imply. The Thespians had suffered in the battle 
of Delium, in the service of Thebes (iv. 96 med.), and the Thebans 
basely took advantage of their misfortune to demolish their walls 
(iv. 133 init.). The government of Thespiae, at the time when the 
people rose against it, whether oligarchical or not, was clearly 
imposed upon them by Thebes. 

Shortly before (Xen. Hell. vi. 3.1.5), or shortly after(Paus. ix. 13. 3, 
14. 1), the battle of Leuctra, the Thespians, like the Plataeans, were 
finally expelled from the city. But in Isocr. Plat. (xiv.), written in 
373, where the Thebans are described as demolishing the walls 
of several cities of Boeotia (§§ 21, 38), the lot of the Thespians 
is contrasted with that of the Plataeans (§ 10), whence Mr. Grote 
infers that, contrary to Xenophon’s account, the severer measure 
of expulsion was not put in force against them before the battle 
of Leuctra. There was a standing enmity between Thebes and 
Thespiae, like that between Thebes and Plataea, and Thespiae, 
like Plataea, had refused submission to Persia, Herod. vii. 132. 


& 


ἐξήρτηται yap τὸ ἄλλο χωρίον καὶ μέχρι τῆς πόλεως ἐπικλινές τέ ἐστι καὶ OB. 2. 


3 4 a“ 
ἐπιφανὲς πᾶν εἴσω. 


96. 2. 


97. 1. 
᾿καὶ ἔλαθον αὐτοὺς παντὶ ἤδη τῷ στρατεύματι ἐκ τῆς Κατάνης σχόντες κατὰ 


408 THUCYDIDES. 


The only danger was lest the enemy should ascend Epipolae by 
its unseen approaches. For the whole of Epipolae was elevated, 
lit. hung up, with the exception of the approaches; while the face 
towards the city was an inclined plane and exposed to view. 


οἱ δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ταύτης τῆς νυκτὸς τῇ ἐπιγιγνομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξητάζοντο, 


τὸν Λέοντα καλούμενον, ὃς ἀπέχει τῶν ᾿Επιπολῶν ἐξ ἣ ἑπτὰ σταδίους, καὶ 
τοὺς πεζοὺς ἀποβιβάσαντες, ταῖς τε ναυσὶν ἐς τὴν Θάψον καθορμισάμενοι. 

Thucydides begins by saying that the Athenians were holding 
their muster early in the morning, and at the same time as the 
Syracusans. He does not tell us where the muster was held, but it 
may be inferred from the context (see below), that Leon and not 
Catana was the place. He then goes back and informs the reader 
that the Athenians had already (δη) sailed from Catana and 
landed near Leon, which they must have done on the preceding 
night. The mention of this movement is anticipated in the si- 
gular expression ταύτης τῆς νυκτὸς τῇ ἐπιγιγνομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, i. 6. on the 
day following the night which preceded the Syracusan review. The 
reference in ταύτης τῆς νυκτός is very harsh, but @) the preceding 
night is implied in the expression ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (c. 96 fin.) describing 
the time of the Syracusan review, and 4) the mention of the night 
is natural if the night movement of the Athenians was already in 
the writer’s mind. 

Thucydides is led to invert the order of his narrative for the 
sake of bringing into relation the Syracusan muster and the Athe- 
nian muster. Cp., for the pluperfect sense of the aorist, ii. 83. 3, 
where the same word ἔλαθον occurs, καὶ οὐκ ἔλαθον νυκτὸς ὑφορμισά- 
μενοι, and note. 

The order of the words might lead us to suppose that the Athe- 
nians mustered at Catana and went to Leon afterwards. But a 
fatal objection to this view of the passage is the time which would — 
have been taken up if the voyage from Catana to Leon had fol- 
lowed instead of preceding the muster at daybreak. For it is clear 
that the Athenians reached the summit of Epipolae before the 
Syracusan muster was over. And the voyage could be made by 
night, but the muster would require daylight. 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 409 


The Athenians landed at or near Leon, a place about a mile 97. 1 

from Epipolae and two or three miles from Thapsus, where they 
left their ships and sailors. The soldiers ran up the hill in a south 
west direction. Meanwhile the Syracusans were holding a review 
in the meadows by the river Anapus, which runs into the Great 
Harbour, being fully three miles distant from Leon and five or six | 
from Thapsus; and entirely cut off from view by the intervening 
hill. When the Syracusans discovered the Athenians they were still 
three miles from them and had to run up hill. The Athenians 
gained the summit of Epipolae by the Euryelus, or ‘-broad knoll,’ 
n the north side. The exact position of the Euryelus, the part of 
the hill by which Epipolae was ascended, and of Labdalum, the 
ort which the Athenians erected on the northern cliff of Epipolae, 
&s unknown. The former has been supposed to be either Belvedere, 
tthe highest summit of Epipolae, or the rocky eminence nearer the 
< ity, a point now called Mongibellisi. 


καὶ καταστήσαντες ἐν τῷ Λαβδάλῳ φυλακὴν ἐχώρουν πρὸς τὴν Συκῆν οἱ θ8. 2. 
᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἵναπερ καθεζόμενοι ἐτείχισαν τὸν κύκλον διὰ τάχους. καὶ ἔκ- 
“Ξοιιληξιν τοῖς Συρακοσίοις παρέσχον τῷ τάχει τῆς οἰκοδομίας" καὶ ἐπεξελθόντες 

“ιάχην διενοοῦντο ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ μὴ περιορᾶν. 

It is thought by Didot, Arnold, Grote, and others, that κύκλος in 
this and some other passages refers, not to the line of Athenian 
circumvallation, but to a circular fort, supposed to be built some- 
where on the slope of Epipolae. The reasons which may be urged 
on behalf of this view are— 

a) That the aorist here implies the completion of the work, 
whereas the Athenian line of circumvallation was now only be- 
ginning, and was never completed. 

6) That the Athenians are said (vi. 101 init.) to carry their wall 
ἀπὸ τοῦ κύκλου, where the word κύκλος seems to mark a definite 
point. 

c) That Nicias is said to be left ‘in the circle’ (c. 102 med.) 
αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν κύκλον Νικίας διεκώλυσεν (ἔτυχε yap ἐν αὐτῷ δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν 
ὑπολελειμμένος). 

But to these reasons may be opposed far stronger ones :— 

a) The meaning of the word κύκλος, which is used elsewhere in 


98. 2. 


400 THUCYDIDES. 


Thucydides in the sense of the circuit of a city wall (thoughmmmm no; 
necessarily a complete circle); so twice of the walls of Ath —eng 
li. 13 fin. τοῦ Φαληρικοῦ τείχους στάδιοι ἦσαν πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα upthees τὸν 
κύκλον τοῦ ἄστεος, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ κύκλου τὸ φυλασσόμενον rpc εεὶ 
τεασαράκοντα. 

δ) Even if κύκλος could bear the sense of a circular fort, it is στ" 
probable that in the narrative of the same siege the same wor? 
would be used without explanation in two senses utterly differes>™ 
But in vii. 2 fin. τῷ δ᾽ ἄλλῳ τοῦ κύκλου the word can certainly ha = 
no other meaning than the line of circumvallation. The expressios@—” 
cannot be equivalent to ἑτέρωθι τοῦ κύκλου. And if κύκλος is not 
be taken in the natural sense of the wall encircling the city, δες: δὰ 
the singular construction to which it is supposed to refer shouios & 4 
have been minutely described, not obscurely alluded to or abrupt! tha E - y 
introduced. 

c) The outwork of the κύκλος is described as a thousand feet ix = in 
length, vi. 102 init. This description is intelligible if κύκλος μεῖς *° 
means the piece of the wall which the Athenians were engaged in gx en 
building. To ithis, while being built, the προτείχισμα furnished a= Ja 
protection. Cp. the Syracusan palisades, vi. 99 med. But if the = ne 
‘circular fort’ be intended, what would have been the use of an 45 -5Ὁ 
outwork nearly a quarter of a mile in length? 

(4) The terror of the Syracusans at the rapidity with which wich 
the Athenians advanced their works (described in this passage, «< 
ἔκπληξιν τοῖς Συρακοσίοις παρεῖχον) harmonizes better with the explana- —— + 
tion of the κύκλος as a line of circumvallation. 


το 


The use of κύκλος in vi. 99 init. καὶ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ οἱ μὲν ἐτείχιζον τῶν 
᾿Αθηναίων τὸ πρὸς βορέαν τοῦ κύκλου τεῖχος is equally compatible with =m 
either explanation. 

In answer to the arguments which have been urged for the view 
of Arnold and others it may be observed— 

a) That there is no necessity to translate ἐτείχισαν, ‘they com- 
pleted,’ but only, ‘they built, the wall.’ In a historical narrative the 
aorist can be applied to an imperfect and continuous act as well 
as the imperfect itself, though it cannot express its continuous and 
imperfect nature :—as in English, ‘ they built the wall’ is consistent 
with the wall remaining unfinished, and and may be equivalent to 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 401 


= they began to build the wall.’ Cp. the use of the aorist in 98. 2. 
~words ‘like ἐβασίλευσε, ἐτυράννευσε (‘came to the throne’), ἤρξε 
<‘ conquered’). 

6) That the words ἀπὸ τοῦ κύκλου (101 init.) may mean, ‘from the 
«κύκλος 45 far as it was finished, i.e. from the place where the 
Athenians had left off building the κύκλος. The work had been 
interrupted by the necessity of taking the Syracusan counter-wall ; 
and they resumed it again at the point where it had been left off. 
Or from this spot the wall may have been no longer circular, but 
may have run over the cliff and across the marsh in a straight 
line. 

c) Nicias may have been left ‘inside the wall’ if the original wall, 
like that part of it which ran from the cliff to the Great Harbour, 
was double. But this is a matter on which Thucydides is silent 
(see note onc. 103.1). Or the words may refer to some temporary 
building which served as a dépét for the workmen and soldiers. 


of δὲ Συρακόσιοι οὐχ ἥκιστα “Eppoxpdrovs τῶν στρατηγῶν ἐσηγησαμένου 99. 2. 
μάχαις μὲν πανδημεὶ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους οὐκέτι ἐβούλοντο διακινδυνεύειν, ὑποτει- 
χίζειν δὲ ἄμεινον ἐδόκει εἶναι, 7 ἐκεῖνοι ἔμελλον ἄξειν τὸ τεῖχος, καί, εἰ 
φθάσειαν, ἀποκλήσεις γίγνεσθαι, καὶ ἅμα, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ εἰ ἐπιβοηθοῖεν, 
μέρος ἂντιπέμπειν αὐτοὺς τῆς στρατιᾶς, καὶ φθάνειν ἄν τοῖς σταυροῖς προ- 
καταλαμβάνοντες τὰς ἐφόδους, ἐκείνους δὲ ἄν, πανομένους τοῦ ἔργου, πάντας 
ἂν πρὸς σφᾶς τρέπεσθαι. 

1)* γίγνεσθαι, φθάνειν ἄν, are governed by some word like ἐνόμιζον 
== ἐδόκει, supplied from ἄμεινον ἐδόκει εἶναι. The subject of φθάσειαν 
will then be the Syracusans who, ‘ if they were first, would intercept 
the Athenians.’ 

Or 2) still supplying some word like ἐνόμιζον with φθάνειν ἄν, we 
May include ἀποκλήσεις γίγνεσθαι in the relative clause, repeating 
ἔμελλον, ‘and where the Athenians, if they got before them, would 
cut them off;’ καὶ dua... ἀντιπέμπειν then connects immediately with 
ὑποτειχίζειν. 

The plural ἀποκλήσεις is used by association of ideas, because the 
attacks which were to be baffled might be made more than once. 
The wall or counter-wall would shut the enemy off whenever they 
attacked. 

VOL. I. pd 


99. 


4. 


402 THUCYDIDES. 


A 


καὶ ἐν τούτῳ should be taken together, and a comma placed after-——m 
ἅμα. καί emphasizes ἐν τούτῳ, ‘and if the Athenians attacked them «mm 
even then,’ i.e. while they, the Syracusans, were building the wall, .. #1], 
and not themselves risking an engagement, ‘ they would send a part-#>—at 
of their army to meet them.’ 

αὐτούς, the reading of all the MSS., although harsh, is capable of «—»f 
explanation. It may be taken as dependent on ἄμεινον ἐδόκει cima, 
the slight emphasis on αὐτούς being accounted for by the change 0: <c—=nof 
subject from ἐπιβοηθοῖεν ; ‘it seemed to be better that they shoulc» #1d 
themselves send.’ 

ras ἐφόδους appears to mean 1)* ‘the attacks’ of the Atheniane== ans, 
as in numerous other passages, cp. iv. 126 fin. τοῖς τὴν πρώτην ἔφοδω.""» ἴδω 
δεξαμένοις, etc., answering to εἰ ἐπιβοηθοῖεν above. It has been exam =x- 
plained 2) to mean, ‘ points by which the enemy could assail themar—mrn,’ 
a meaning which the word is capable of bearing, cp. iv. 129 firm arin, 
Νικόστρατος δὲ ἄλλῃ épddp .. . ἐπιὼν τῷ λόφῳ. But we are not certai@ir_amin 
that there were any special points of access. It is possible indee==a~-ed 
if the counter-wall was constructed on the lower level of Neapol <alis 
(see next note), that the Athenians came down through passes= in 


the southern cliff of Epipolae. But this is not expressly stated = ἰῃ 
the narrative of Thucydides. 
ἐκείνους δὲ... πάντας ἂν πρὸς σφᾶς τρέπεσθαι. For the purpose - οἵ 


attack the whole Athenian army would be required ; for the defen» -smce 
of the counter-wall, which was comparatively a small work, a fe==eW 
Syracusan soldiers would suffice, especially as they could run aa 
palisade past the Athenian wall without waiting to complete tM —mthe 
counter-wall itself. 


ἐτείχιζον οὖν ἐξελθόντες ἀπὸ τῆς σφετέρας πόλεως ἀρξάμενοι, κάτω» “8εν 
τοῦ κύκλου τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐγκάρσιον τεῖχος ἄγοντες, τάς τε ἐλάας ἐκκόπτοακΞ» 
τες τοῦ Τεμένους καὶ πύργους ξυλίνους καθιστάντες. 

κάτωθεν τοῦ κύκλου. The counter-wall 1) was carried from 
point below the Athenian wall of circumvallation, i.e. up t 
slope of Epipolae, or 2) it was constructed, as Arnold suppose==—*» 
on the lower ground to the south east of Epipolae, between Ὁ Ξ 
cliffs and the marsh; afterwards occupied by the quarter calle=— d 
Neapolis. 


2 
e 


NOTES, BOOK V1. 403 


ἡ δὲ ἄλλη στρατιὰ δίχα, ἡ μὲν μετὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου στρατηγοῦ πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, 100. 1. 
εἰ ἐπιβοηθοῖεν, ἐχώρουν, ἡ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου πρὸς τὸ σταύρωμα τὸ 
παρὰ τὴν πυλίδα. 
The movement of the second subdivision of the army (ἡ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ 
érépov) is not clearly described. They went towards some ‘stockade 
near the postern gate,’ but whether the gate was in the cross-wall, 
or in the wall of the city, is not stated. Cp. v. 10 med. κατὰ ras 
ἐπὶ τὸ σταύρωμα πύλας. 


καὶ τῶν ᾿Αργείων τινὲς αὐτόθι καὶ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων οὐ πολλοὶ διεφθάρησαν. 100. 3. 

The division which took the cross-wall must have been joined 
in the attack or pursuit by troops belonging to one of the other two 
divisions of the army, if ‘certain Argives’’ were among those who 
entered the Syracusan outworks and were slain. For the Argives 
who accompanied the expedition were hoplites (c. 43 med.), while 
the division which took the cross-wall consisted a) of Athenian 
hoplites, 4) of light-armed troops furnished with heavy arms for the 
occasion. See Mr. Grote. ° 


τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ ἀπὸ τοῦ κύκλου ἐτείχιζον οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὸν κρημνὸν τὸν 10], 1. 
ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔλους, ὃς τῶν ᾿Επιπολῶν ταύτῃ πρὸς τὸν μέγαν λιμένα ὁρᾷ, καὶ 
ἧπερ αὐτοῖς βραχύτατον ἐγίγνετο καταβᾶσι διὰ τοῦ ὁμαλοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἕλους 
ἐς τὸν λιμένα τὸ περιτείχισμα. 
ἥπερ is connected by καί with τὸν κρημνόν :----ἐτείχιζον "τὸν κρημνόν, 
καὶ ἐτείχιζον ἧπερ. ‘They carried their wall over the cliff, and along 
the line which was the nearest way to the harbour.’ 


καὶ τῶν Συρακοσίων of μὲν τὸ δεξιὸν κέρας ἔχοντες πρὸς τὴν πόλιν ἔφυγον, 101. 4. 
οἱ & ἐπὶ τῷ εὐωνύμῳ παρὰ τὸν ποταμόν. 

The Syracusans on the left wing wished to escape, not to the 
city, but to the Olympieum on the other side of the river. 


καὶ προσπεσόντων αὐτῶν ξυνεφοβήθη καὶ ἡ πρώτη φυλὴ τοῦ κέρως. 101. 5. 
The MSS. read φυλακή. See note on viii. 92. 4. 


καὶ τούτους μὲν of Συρακόσιοι εὐθὺς κατὰ τάχος φθάνουσιν ἁρπάσαντες 101. 6. 
πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐς τὸ ἀσφαλές" αὐτοὶ δέ, ἐπιόντος ἤδη καὶ τοῦ ἄλλου 
στρατεύματος τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ἀπεχώρουν. 

pd2 


101. 6. 


102. 2. 


102. 4. 


103. 1. 


104. 2. 


404 THUCYDIDES. 


αὐτοί, as opposed to the dead bodies, τούτους, an opposition nan 
which can hardly be retained in English; ‘there they left the τ 
bodies, and themselves retreated before the advancing Athenians,’ ~~ . 
or ‘they secured the bodies, but themselves had to retreat.’ Itis so», 
implied that the Syracusans, having carried off the dead, recrossed Fy ., 


the river, and then retreated a second time. 


αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν κύκλον Νικίας διεκώλυσεν' ἔτυχε yap ἂν αὐτῷ δὲ ἀσθένειαπακ we, 
ὑπολελειμμένος. 
Cp. note on vi. 98. 2 ad fin. 


νομίσαντες μὴ ἂν ἔτι ἀπὸ τῆς παρούσης σφίσι δυνάμεως ἱκανοὶ γενέσθαι... α 
κωλῦσαι τὸν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τειχισμόν. 

Words such as νομίζω, οἶμαι, λέγω, seem to take μή as well as cod 
with the infinitive following, the subjective meaning of the ve-—— 
being repeated by attraction in the particle. Cp. iv. 99, vopl{ar-—— es 
... οὐκ ἂν αὐτοὺς Big σφῶν κρατῆσαι αὐτῶν : Xen. Symp. iv. 5, «= —_ 
καὶ of μάντεις λέγονται... ἑαυτοῖς μὴ προορᾶν τὸ ἐπιόν. 


ἀπὸ τῶν Ἐπιπολῶν καὶ τοῦ κρημνώδους ἀρξάμενοι ἀπετείχιζον μέχρι τεσσ ιααης 
θαλάσσης τείχει διπλῷ τοὺς Συρακοσίους. 

It is not certain whether the Athenian wall was double above ——— 
well as below the southern cliff of Epipolae, probably not, for, if Ν 
had been, the labour οὗ a great work would have been doubles== ad 
Yet no part of the wall is described as single. When Gylippus ar a 
rived the double wall is said to have been completed to a length c= of 
seven or cight stadia: the remainder, it is not said whether doubt ———" 
or single, being finished only in places. A double wall was neces= —s 
sary on the lower ground, for there the Athenians were expose 
to attack both from the Olympieum and from the city. 


καὶ ὁ μὲν Τύλιππος ἐκ τοῦ Τάραντος ἐς τὴν Θουρίαν πρῶτον πρεσβευσάε-- 
μενος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρός ποτε πολιτείαν «.T.A. 

‘Inasmuch as his father had formerly been a citizen theres 
Cleandridas, the father of Gylippus, was banished from Sparta i= 
receiving a bribe from Pericles, when acting as counsellor to Kin == 
Pleistoanax in 445 (cp. Thuc. i. 114, ii. 21 init.) He retired τ. <= 
Thurii. (Plut. Pericl. xxii, Nic. xxviii, ep. Diod. xiii. 106.) 


᾽ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 405 


καὶ ἁρπασθεὶς in’ ἀνέμον, κατὰ τὸν Τεριναῖον κόλπον, ὃς ἐκπνεῖ ταύτῃ 104. 2. 
μέγας, κατὰ βορέαν ἑστηκώς, ἀποφέρεται ἐς τὸ πέλαγος, καὶ πάλιν, χειμα- 
σθεὶς ἐς τὰ μάλιστα, τῷ Τάραντι προσμίσγει. 

κατὰ τὸν Τεριναῖον κόλπον. The Terinaean Gulf, according to Pliny, 
H. N. iii. 72 (5, 10), was on the north-west side of the extreme 
point of Italy. But Gylippus was on the south-east side. Are . 
we to suppose that the name once extended to the south-east as 
well as to the north-west coast? This is improbable, and it 
is quite impossible to suppose with Arnold that Gylippus could 
have been described as sailing κατὰ τὸν Τεριναῖον κόλπον, when he 
was divided from it by the land. We must suppose therefore 
m ) that there is a corruption in the text, probably arising out of an 
Erroneous gloss, or 2) that either Thucydides or Pliny have made 


m mistake. 


καὶ πολλάκις ᾿Αργείων κελευόντων ὅσον σχόντας μόνον ξὺν ὅπλοις ἐς τὴν LOS. 2. 


δλακωνικήν x.T.d. 
For ὅσον cp. note on iv. 16. 1, ὅσα μὴ ἀποβαίνοντας. 


1. 2. 


1. 5. 


BOOK VII. 


ἄλλως re καὶ τῶν ᾿Αττικῶν τεσσάρων νεῶν οὕπω παρουσῶν ἐν τῷ ‘Pays ae 
ἃς ὁ Νικίας ὅμως, πυνθανόμενος αὐτοὺς ἐν Λοκροῖς εἶναι͵ ἀπέστειλε. 

As elsewhere ὅμως has a remote and somewhat obscure ante=a—te- 
cedent, cp. i. 105 fin., ii. 51 fin., iii. 28 fin., iii, 49 init., iii. 80 med E>e4, 
iv. 96 fin., v. 61 init., vi. 69 med., vi. 70 fin., viii. 97 init., ‘whica—ech 
Nicias, notwithstanding his contempt for the squadron of Gylippus= mms’ 
(mentioned at the end of the previous book, vi. 104 fin.), ‘neve: ==r- 
theless sent.’ 


καὶ ὁ μὲν Τύλιππος ἀναλαβὼν τῶν re σφετέρων ναυτῶν καὶ ἐπιβατακαα ὧν» 
τοὺς ὡπλισμένους, ἑπτακοσίους μάλιστα, Ἱμεραίους δὲ ὁπλίτας καὶ ψιλο«τἰὐνὖν ς 
ξυναμφοτέρους χιλίους καὶ ἱππέας ἑκατόν, καὶ Σελινουντίων τέ τινας ψιλοαααεῖ»-: 
καὶ ἱππέας καὶ Γελῴων ὀλίγους, Σικελῶν τε ἐς χιλίους τοὺς πάντας, ἐχώρ:Ξ---» “εἰ 
πρὸς τὰς Συρακούσας. 

1) The whole army of Gylippus amounted to 2800 ifwei = — 
clude the Selinuntians, Geloans, and Sicels in the 1000 who α΄ κέ 
last mentioned. Or if 2)* we refer the words τοὺς πάντας to {868-56 
Sicels only, who were probably collected out of many tribes, the===" 
the number will be 2800, + a few light-armed and cavalry fro=— m 
Gela and Selinus. 


καὶ of μὲν Συρακόσιοι ἐπεῤῥώσθησάν re καὶ rp Γυλίππῳ εὐθὺς itil 4 
ὡς ἀπαντησόμενοι ἐξῆλθον" ἤδη yap καὶ ἐγγὺς ὄντα ἡσθάνοντο αὐτόν. ὁ 
Γέτας τό τε τεῖχος ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ τῶν Σικελῶν ἑλών, καὶ ξυνταξάμενος ὡς ἐ 
μάχην, ἀφικνεῖται ἐς τὰς ᾿Επιπολάς. 

The MSS. present a variety of readings, 6 δὲ ᾿Ιέγας τέ τι reiy—ern 
ὁ δὲ Téras τὸ τεῖχος, ὁ δέ ye τὰ τότε τι τεῖχος, ὁ δέ ye τὸ τεῖχος, ee“ 
Some proper name seems to be contained in these words. The mc st 
probable correction is ὁ δὲ ᾿έτας (e conj.), or Γέτας, τότε, or τ 
τι, OF Té Tt, τεῖχος. τότε may refer 1) to the time when the Syr— =a 
cusans were expecting Gylippus, or 2) to the end of ¢.1, ‘now τα ὦ 
after marching forth as I have described, cp. note on viii. 62. 3 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 407 


Between Γέτας and Ἰέτας it is difficult to decide, but thcre is 
independent evidence in favour of Ἰέτας. The Ietenses are men- 
tioned by Pliny, iii. 91. (8, 14), the letini (if this conjecture for Letini 
‘be correct) by Cicero, Verr. iii. 43. 103. The name of a fortress, 
letae, is said by Stephanus Byzantinus to occur in Philistus. The 
close connection between ἑλών and ξυνταξάμενος would seem to 
show that the place referred to was near the Syracusan frontier. 
A tribe called ᾿Ιαιτῖνοε are also mentioned by Diodorus (xxii. 10. 4, 
xxiii. 18. 5), but, as they dwelt in the neighbourhood of Panormus, 
they can have little or no connection with Ἰεταί, if "Iéras be the 
true reading of this passage. 


καὶ ἀναβὰς κατὰ τὸν Ἑὐρύηλον, ἧπερ καὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὸ πρῶτον, ἐχώρει 
mera τῶν Συρακοσίων ἐπὶ τὸ τείχισμα τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων. 

Gylippus coming from the interior of the country, as the 
Athenians had originally come in an opposite direction (vi. 97 
ned.) from Leon and the sea, still ascended, as they did, the cliffs 
of Epipolae by the knoll of Euryelus. The Syracusans appear to 
Ihave received some previous communication from him (c. 2 med.). 
“Thucydides describes the state of the Athenian lines at this point 
wf the narrative, to explain how the Syracusans were able to get 
out of them, or Gylippus to make his way in. The description 
also prepares the way for the fina] countermove of the Syracusans 
(c. 6). The hilly character of the ground, which enabled him 
almost immediately on his arrival to take Labdalum (vii. 3 fin.), 
gave his appearance the nature of a surprise. 

The exact point of the narrative at which Gylippus entered the 
city is not clearly stated. We cannot therefore be certain on 
which side of the Athenian wall the movements mentioned c. 2 fin., 
3 init. took place. It is probable however that he entered before 
the first attack on the Athenian wall; (ἐχώρει pera τῶν Συρακοσίων 
ἐπὶ τὸ τείχισμα τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ὃ 3.) 


παρὰ τοσοῦτον μὲν Συράκουσαι ἦλθον κινδύνου. 
Cp. note on iii. 49. 4. 


ἦν δὲ οὐκ ἐπιφανὲς τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τὸ χωρίον. ® 
Labdalum was not visible from the Athenian lines because 


2. 3- 


2. 3. 


2. 4. 


8. 5. 


9. 5. 


8. 5. 


408 THUCYDIDES. 


(Holm, Geschichte v. Sicilien, vol. ii. p. 387) the further, or northe:=™ 
edge of Epipolae is less elevated than the central portion; whi<=™ 
would thus obstruct the view. 


καὶ τριήρης τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἁλίσκεται τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ὑπὸ τῶν Tupaxocl—”” 
ἐφορμοῦσα τῷ λιμένι. 

τῷ λιμένι, 1) the Syracusan harbour inside the Great Ηδιῦοι .-----ἰῖ, 
compare vil. 4 med. δι’ ἐλάσσονος γὰρ πρὸς τῷ λιμένι τῷ τῶν Συρακοσία».--Ὁ» 
ἐφορμήσειν σφᾶς, καὶ οὐχ, ὥσπερ νῦν, ἐκ μυχοῦ τοῦ λιμένος τὰς ἐπαναγωγ"-““α 
ποιήσεσθα. But the words may also τωέδῃ 24) ‘watching ΕΞΡΡΙΕς 
mouth of the Great Harbour from the outside.’ 

Vat. H. read τῷ μεγάλῳ λιμένι, probably a gloss added by som——* 
one who adopted the second of these two explanations. 


καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐτείχιζον of Συρακόσιοι καὶ of ξύμμαχοι διὰ τῶν Exrroha © 
ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἀρξάμενοι ἄνω πρὸς τὸ ἐγκάρσιον τεῖχος ἁπλοῦν, ὅκως = 
᾿Αθηναῖοι, εἰ μὴ δύναιντο κωλῦσαι, μηκέτι οἷοί re ὦσιν ἀποτειχίσαι. 
τς . . . . 4 

The Syracusans, ‘ beginning at the city, carried a single line << 
wall over Epipolae at an angle (πρὸς τὸ ἐγκάρσιον) with the A’ , 
wall.’ <A similar wall is called ἐγκάρσιον τεῖχος, vi. 99 fin. πρὸς - ᾿ς 
ἐγκάρσιον is to be taken adverbially, not with τεῖχος. For τὸ ἐγκάρσιεξαοο. 
τεῖχος can here bear no satisfactory meaning, and it would i 
difficult to supply τεῖχος a second time, either with ἁπλοῦν from ope 
τὸ ἐγκάρσιον, OF with πρὸς τὸ ἐγκάρσιον from ἁπλοῦν. 

ἄνω, either 1)* ‘upwards,’ or 2) ‘on the higher ground, im 
κατώθεν in vi. 99. 3, see note, be taken to mean ‘on the lowe =" 
level.’ 

Hitherto the Syracusans had attempted to cross the Athe==——”" 7 
nian wall nearer its southern extremity. They now made a similax— 
attempt to the north of the Athenian line, which was successful. 


“e 


— 

καὶ of τε ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀναβεβήκεσαν ἤδη ἄνω τὸ ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ τεῖχος ἐπιτελέ-“΄ - 
σαντες, καὶ ὁ Γύλιππος, ἦν γάρ τι τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τοῦ τείχους ἀσθενές. Ὁ 5 
νυκτὸς ἀναλαβὼν τὴν στρατιὰν ἐπήει πρὸς αὐτό. οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἔτυχον γὰρ- # 
ἔξω αὐλιζόμενοι, ὡς ἥσθοντο, ἀντεπήεσαν. 

τὲ---καί, No sooner had the Athenians gone up, than Gipm==— 
attecked their wall; i.e. the wall on the lower ground which they~— " 
had just left. : 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 409 


ἔξω, outside their own lines, i.e. in the interval between the 4. 2. 
Athenian wall of circumvallation and the Syracusan city wall. 


τῷ τε yap ὕδατι σπανίῳ χρώμενοι καὶ οὐκ ἐγγύθεν, καὶ ἐπὶ φρυγανισμὸν 4. 6. 
ἅμα ὁπότε ἐξέλθοιεν οἱ ναῦται, ὑπὸ τῶν ἱππέων τῶν Συρακοσίων κρατούντων 
τῆς γῆς διεφθείροντο. 

τῷ ὕδατι σπανίῳ χρώμενοι is subordinate to ὁπότε ἐξέλθοιεν, ‘ when- 
ever the sailors went out, which they had to do frequently, a) 
because their supply of water was scanty, δ) for firewood.’ 


τῆς yap ἵππου καὶ τῶν ἀκοντιστῶν τὴν ὠφελίαν τῇ τάξει ἐντὸς λίαν τῶν ὅ. 3. 
Ξπιυεεχῶν ποιήσας ἀφελέσθαι. 
τῇ τάξει, dative of instrument; ποιήσας, 501]. αὐτήν. 


ὡς τῇ μὲν παρασκευῇ οὐκ ἔλασσον ἔξοντας, τῇ δὲ γνώμῃ οὐκ ἀνεκτὸν ἐσό- 5. 4. 
pevoy εἰ μὴ ἀξιώσουσι «.1.A. 
τῇ γνώμῃ is to be taken, not with ἀνεκτόν, but with ἀξιώσουσι. 


καὶ ὁ Τύλιππος τοὺς μὲν ὁπλίτας ἔξω τῶν τειχῶν μᾶλλον ἣ πρότερον 6, 2. 
προεξαγαγὼν ξυνέμισγεν αὐτοῖς κιτ.λ. 

We must suppose an interval between the end of the Athenian 
wall and the counter-wall sufficient for the two armies to fight in. 
The Syracusans are drawn up in front of their own counter-wall, 
and the Athenians advance out of their lines to meet them. In 
the previous engagement Gylippus placed his forces where they 
were cooped up between the Athenian wall, the counter-wall, and 
the city wall; probably stationing the cavalry and javelin-men in 
the most disadvantageous position of all, on his own left wing, 
opposite the Athenian right : (although this is not expressly stated.) 
He now led his whole force further out and placed the horsemen 
and javelin-men on his right wing opposite to the enemy’s left, on 
the open ground of Epipolae, where they could freely move about 
and manceuvre. 


καὶ ξυνέτείχισαν τὸ λοιπὸν τοῖς Συρακοσίοις μέχρι τοῦ ἐγκαρσίον τείχους. 7. I 
The words seem to mean 1) that the crews of the Corinthian 
ships assisted in the completion of the Syracusan wall, which, 


7. 


| 


410 THUCYDIDES. 


. though finished at the point where it passed the wall of the == e 


Athenians, may have been only half finished up to that point: cp. — <p. 
the manner of building the first counter-wall, vi. 99 med. ἐγκάρσιον παῖ «ἰὸν 
τεῖχος will then mean either the wall of the Athenians, so οδιοὰ ΒΈ-» -- ἢ 
because it crossed the Syracusan wall at an angle; or the portionsra «on 
of the Syracusan cross-wall which had actually passed the Athe-———,e. 
nian wall. Or 2) the Syracusans in fortifying their camps out— —=# at. 
side the city (c. 43 med.) may have protected them by a walk ΗΓ _anll 
running parallel with the unfinished Athenian line, and at righ® «cht 
angles with the Syracusan cross-wall (ἐγκάρσιον reixos). And thic= ze sis 
may have been the wall which the Syracusans and their allies werem—=are 
jointly engaged in completing. This however is merely a con—-ar- 
jecture, as nothing is elsewhere said of such a wall. 

3) Mr. Grote is of opinion that the wall which the Corinthian alle= <== 
assisted in raising was really another wall coming down from tha» -« <© 
heights of Epipolae to meet the original counter-wall (μέχρε ream 
ἐγκαρσίου reixous). The existence of such a wall he infers from they ===—° 
account of the night attack upon Epipolae, vii. 42, 43. 

But a) it seems strange that Thucydides should leave so muck = 
to be gathered from the context. Without previous explanation” 3 --" 
he would be for the first time obscurely indicating a new and mos === “ 
important Syracusan work of defence. 

6) The work would have been nearly or quite as long as the=™ = ’ 
Athenian wall of circumvallation itself, and would have requi — 
a large army to guard it. The only use of the supposed wall - “9 
would have been to preserve the communication between the city == my 
and the fort on the Euryelus, vii. 43 med. But the extent of the==—™ me 
work scems out of proportion to the advantage gained. The==——™ ae 
Syracusans maintained a detached fort on the Olympieum, why = 
not then on the Euryelus? 

c) According to Mr. Grote, the Syracusans, instead of prolonging — ==> 
the line of the cross-wall, would have brought another line of wall με! 
from a point a mile and a half or two miles distant to meet it: " 
but this is very improbable in itself, and must, if intended, have 
been more fully described than by the words μέχρι τοῦ ἐγκαρσίον 


τείχους. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 411 


4) In the account of the night attack on Epipolae there is nothing 7. 1. 
1ich justifies Mr. Grote’s supposition, but rather the contrary, for 
ere is no mention of any wall extending from the city to the 
iryelus, but only 4) of a fort on the Euryelus, which the 
‘henians first took, and 4) of three fortified camps lower down 
.43 med.). Had the παρατείχισμα (c. 42 fin.) really extended to the 
rt on the Euryelus, it would have been necessary, for the sake of 
-arness, to mention the fact in c. 42 fin. c. 43 med. Now in 
42 fin. Demosthenes is expressly said to plan an attack on the 
ρατείχισμα τῶν Συρακοσίων, ᾧ ἐκώλυσαν περιτειχίσαι σφᾶς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους. 
hus the παρατείχισμα is identified with the counter-work of vii. 4 
id 6. But the words ᾧ ἐκώλυσαν περιτειχίσαι «.r.d., would be a 
agular mode of describing a wall which had been elongated two 
᾿ three times its original length, and now reached to the top 
” Epipolae and to the Euryelus. And again in c. 43 med. the 
king of the τείχισμα and the παρατείχισμα are spoken of as two 
stinct operations. But if the fort on the Euryelus had really 
een connected with the city by a long wall, the possession of one 
‘ould have implied the possession of the other. Moreover the 
larm would have been described as running along the wall, as 
ell as being carried by the guards into the city. And it would 
ave been a useless waste of time to pull the battlement off the 
‘all (c. 43) when having taken the adjoining τείχισμα the Athenians 
ould have got round it at any time. Both in the advance and 
1 the retreat of the Athenians, the supposed wall must have been 
f the greatest importance. The silence of Thucydides respecting 
1e wall, if it existed, makes the whole narrative of c. 43 un- 
atelligible. 

4) The omission of the word μέχρι, though hardly justifiable 
gainst the authority of the MSS., would give an easier reading. The 
neaning would then be, ‘ They assisted the Syracusans in com- 
leting the cross-wall.’ We have been told that it had been carried 
m past the Athenian line of circumvallation ; and it may have been 
iecessary either to strengthen an unfinished previous portion, or to 
‘ary it on to some further point, such as the edge of the cliffs, at 
vhich it could not be turned. We may argue, as Mr. Grote 
Tgues respecting the first counter-wall (Appendix on the siege of 


412 THUCYDIDES. 


7. 1, Syracuse), that, unless the cross-wall was thus protected, there wotlaw _Ad 


7. 3. 


be no difficulty in getting round it, or necessity for attacking mr it 
in front; at any rate there would be no difficulty sufficient ta» —#to 
justify the strong words of Thucydides who says, that, if the athe 
cross-wall were not taken, ‘whether the Athenians were victors o«—sor 
vanquished in the field would make no difference to them,’ ΓΞ =p. 
6 med. ταὐτὸν ἤδη ἐποίει αὐτοῖς νικᾶν τε μαχομένοις διὰ παντὸς καὶ py ες δὲ 
μάχεσθαι, and 6 fin. εἰ καὶ κρατοῖεν κτλ. And we may reply νυ Ξϑὲ sith 
Holm (vol. ii. p. 390) that, even if such a wall were not carrie—=» ied 
on to a point at which it could not be turned, it would still be— be 
necessary for the enemy, not merely to get behind it, but eithe=» «het 
to capture and demolish it, or to overtake and work round ix tt, 
either of which would be almost impossible ; especially as theif -sthe 
cross-wall would be of such a width to form a fort which could bo _—ibe 
defended, and from which the builders of the wall of circumvallcs KE Eila- 
tion could easily be attacked. But this is a matter on which Thucg- 5» ‘y- 
dides is silent (see further note on ο. 42. 4.) Whether the wass>—~wall 
was carried up to the cliff or not, it was at any rate such 85 (: 23 ἴο 
destroy all hope of taking the city unless it were first taken, cp.» ὦ 
11 fin, ὥστε μὴ εἶναι ἔτι περιτειχίσαι αὐτούς, ἣν μή τις τὸ παρατείχισμ.----»--Ξα 


τοῦτο πολλῇ στρατιᾷ ἐπελθὼν ἔλῃ. 


πρέσβεις τε ἄλλοι τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ Κορινθίων ἐς Λακεδαίμονα κακε- 2 
Κόρινθον ἀπεστάλησαν, ὅπως στρατιὰ ἔτι περαιωθῇ τρόπῳ ᾧ ἂν ἐν ὁλκάσι." 
ἣ πλοίοις ἢ ἄλλως ὅπως ἂν προχωρῇ, ὡς καὶ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐπιμετα-- 
πεμπομένων. 

1) προχωρῇ is to be taken both with @ ἄν and ὅπως ἄν. The 
sentence fully written would have run τρόπῳ ᾧ ἂν ἐν ὁλκάσιν ἣ πλοίοις 
προχωρῇ, ἣ ἄλλως ὅπως ἂν mpoxwp7. Or 2) προχωρῇ may be repeated 
after ὅπως ἄν,---ὅπως ἂν προχωρῇ, προχωρῇ. 

πλοῖα. 4) in a general sense, ‘vessels.’ 0) in a more special 
sense, ‘large boats’ or ‘ barges.’ In the second sense πλοῖα are 
distinguished from ὁλκάδες, ‘merchant vessels,’ as well as from 
triremes, ‘long’ or ‘swift’ ships. Cp. vii. 23 init. ὅσοι καὶ ἐς ra 
πλοῖα καὶ ὁλκάδα τινὰ κατέφυγον, and Xen. (?) De Rep. Ath. i. 20, 
ἐμελέτησαν δὲ of μὲν πλοῖον κυβερνῶντες, οἱ δὲ ὁλκάδα, of 8 ἐντεῦθεν 


é 
ἐπὶ τριήρη κατέστησαν. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 413 


ὡς καὶ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων κτλ, These words seem to anticipate the 7. 3. 
despatch of Nicias, mentioned in the next chapter. 


ὁ δὲ Νικίας... ἔπεμπε καὶ αὐτὸς ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας. 8. 1. 
As the Syracusans were sending to Sparta and Corinth, Nicias 
too sent to Athens. 


ὁ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον διὰ φυλακῆς μᾶλλον ἤδη ἔχων ἢ δι᾿ 8. 3. 
ἑκουσίων κινδύνων ἐπεμελεῖτο, 

1) δι’ ἑκουσίων κινδύνων may be taken a) directly with ἐπεμελεῖτο, 
or 4) with ἔχων, supplied from διὰ φυλακῆς ἔχων, which governs τὰ 
κατὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον: The reading in the text, which is adopted by 
Poppo, depends on two MSS., Vat. H. (which also omit τά 
before κατὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον). ‘He now, instead of going out of 
his way to run risks, kept-his army on the defensive, and watched 
carefully over it.’ ἐπεμελεῖτο, scil. τῶν κατὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον. 

The majority of MSS. 2) omit μᾶλλον, and either have ἤδη for 
4 δι, or omit the three letters altogether. The latter reading may 
possibly be correct, ‘ he now, taking care to guard his army against 
self-incurred dangers, watched carefully over it.’ ἑκουσίων κινδύνων 
is then dependent on φυλακῆς. But whether ἑκουσίων κινδύνων be 
taken with φυλακῆς, or, as might be suggested, with ἐπεμελεῖτο, 
the Greek is poor. 

3) Some of the older editors and one corrected MS. (Cass.) 
Omit μᾶλλον with most of the MSS., but read ἣ & with Vat. and H. 
And this may be the true reading. For the omission of μᾶλλον 
before ἢ cp: iii. 23 fin. ἀπηλιώτου ἣ βορέου, and vii. 49 init. ταῖς 
γοῦν ναυσὶν ἣ πρότερον θαρσήσει κρατηθείς. 


ἐν δὲ τῷ αὐτῷ θέρει τελευτῶντι καὶ Εὐετίων στρατηγὸς ᾿Αθηναίων μετὰ 9, 
Περδίκκου στρατεύσας én’ ᾿Αμφίπολιν Θρᾳξὶ πολλοῖς τὴν μὲν πόλιν οὐκ εἷλεν. 

The last time that Perdiccas was mentioned, vi. 7 fin. about 
eighteen months before, he was the enemy of the Athenians. But 
his desertion of the Lacedaemonians may be accounted for by the 
devastation of his lands, and the refusal of the Chalcidians to aid 
him, there described. His changes during the war were so numer- 
ous that Thucydides, as it seems, has forgotten to chronicle one 
of them. 


414 THUCYDIDES. 


ll. 3. νῦν οὖν ἡμεῖς μὲν παυσάμενοι τοῦ περιτειχισμοῦ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν 
ἐναντίων ἡσυχάζομεν᾽ οὐδὲ γὰρ ξυμπάσῃ τῇ στρατιᾷ δυναίμεθ᾽ ἂν χρήσεσθαα... 
ἀπαναλωκυίας τῆς φυλακῆς τῶν τειχῶν μέρος τι τοῦ ὁπλιτικοῦ κιτλ. 

οὐδὲ γάρ. Either 1)" ‘for, besides their general superiority ΚΒ. πὸ 
numbers, neither could we use our whole force,’ or 2) ‘for vase 
could not even use our whole force,’ i.e. if we took active 
measures ; cp. infra § 4, ξυμβέβηκέ re πολιορκεῖν δοκοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἄλλο-----ὖς 
αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον, ὅσα ye κατὰ γῆν, τοῦτο macxew οὐδὲ γὰρ τῆς χώρ---«ας 
ἐπὶ πολὺ διὰ τοὺς ἱππέας ἐξερχόμεθα. 


12. 3. νῦν δὲ αἴ τε νῆες διάβροχοι τοσοῦτον χρόνον ἤδη θαλασσεύουσαι κιτλ. 
Either 1)* ‘saturated and heavy with moisture,’ or 2) διαβρόχειαι»οι, 
‘letting the water through, leaky.’ 


18. 2. τῶν ναυτῶν τῶν μὲν διὰ φρυγανισμὸν καὶ ἁρπαγὴν καὶ ὑδρείαν μακρξξαιιααν 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἱππέων ἀπολλυμένων ot δὲ θεράποντες, ἐπειδὴ ἐς ἀντίπαλα cade 
στήκαμεν, αὐτομολοῦσι, καὶ οἱ ξένοι ol μὲν ἀναγκαστοὶ ἐσβάντες εὐθὺς κατ ἃ 
τὰς πόλεις ἀποχωροῦσιν, οἱ δὲ ὑπὸ μεγάλου μισθοῦ τὸ πρῶτον ἐπαρθένταιεε“ 5 
καὶ οἰόμενοι χρηματιεῖσθαι μᾶλλον ἣ μαχεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ γνώμην ναυτικῶν», 
τε δὴ καὶ τἄλλα ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων ἀνθεστῶτα ὁρῶσιν, οἱ μὲν ἐπ᾽ αὐτομολίαι-- “Ὁ 
προφάσει ἀπέρχονται, οἱ δὲ ὡς ἕκαστοι δύνανται" πολλὴ δ᾽ ἡ Σικελία. 

τῶν ναυτῶν τῶν μέν. δέ in οἱ δὲ θεράποντες answers to μέν; αἵ -- 
though strictly speaking the θεράποντες are not ναῦται, they seem t> 
be reckoned as such, unless we may read, though against the 
authority of the MSS., τῶν ναυτῶν μέν, omitting the second τῶν. 

én’ αὐτομολίας προφάσει : 1)* some left the fleet finding an excuse 
for desertion, others (not deserters) slipped away as they could. 
That this is the opposition intended is clear from the clause which 
follows, πολλὴ δ᾽ ἡ Σικελία---ἴῃς runaways go, not to the enemy in 
Syracuse, but to some other city of Sicily. The literal rendering 
of the phrase is not, ‘making desertion their excuse,’ which would 
be absurd, but, 4) ‘ making a deserter’s excuse,’ ‘ the excuse which 
desertion makes’ (αὐτομολίας, gen. of subject), cp. πενίας ἐλπίδι, ii. 
42 med., or J) ‘ making an excuse for desertion.’ 

Mr. Grote 2) thinks that the words may mean, ‘some of them 
depart under profession of being deserters to the enemy,’ and that 
they denote, what a man said, not before he left the Athenian 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 415 


camp, but at the time of his addressing himself tothe enemy. The 18. 2. 
fatal objection to this explanation is that the word αὐτομολία, like 
‘ desertion’ in English, has reference not to the enemy, but to the 
army from which a man deserts; the primary meaning is ‘ deser- 
tion from a man’s own side,’ not ‘ desertion to some one else.’ 

3) Poppo (ed. min. suggests that αὐτομολίας may be the accusative 
plural. But ἐπ’ avropodias ἀπέρχονται is a poor expression, and 
προφάσει has little or no meaning. 

4) προφάσει has been taken for αἰτίᾳ, as in i. 23 fin. τὴν μὲν yap 
ἀληθεστάτην πρόφασιν, ἀφανεστάτην δὲ λόγῳ: But the substitution of 
αἰτίᾳ for προφάσει here would give a weak sense. 


ὅτι βραχεῖα ἀκμὴ πληρώματος, καὶ ὀλίγοι τῶν ναυτῶν of ἐξορμῶντές 14. 1. 
τε ναῦν καὶ ξυνέχοντες τὴν εἰρεσίαν. 

βραχεῖα ἀκμή κιλ. Either 1)* ‘the prime of a crew is short- 
lived :’ or 2) ‘the efficient part of a crew is small.’ Classen argues 
that the latter explanation is required by the following words 
ὀλίγοι τῶν ναυτῶν κιτλ., which are then a repetition in the concrete 
of what has been already stated in the abstract. 

ὀλέγοι τῶν ναυτῶν. Either 1) generally, ‘few sailors,’ the article 
referring to πληρώματος preceding, or 2)* referring to ναῦν, ‘few of 
the sailors in the ship:’ in either case ὀλίγοι τῶν ναυτῶν is the 
predicate. 


χαλεπαὶ yap ai ὑμέτεραι φύσεις ἄρχειν. 
Cp. Ασιβίορῃ. Peace, 607,— 
τὰς φύσεις ὑμῶν δεδοικὼς καὶ τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον. 


᾿ 14. 2. 


καὶ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ὁπόθεν ἐπιπληρωσόμεθα τὰς ναῦς ἔχομεν, ὃ τοῖς πολεμίοις 14. 2, 
πολλαχόθεν ὑπάρχει, GAN’ ἀνάγκη ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔχοντες ἤλθομεν τά τε ὄντα καὶ 
ἀπαναλισκόμενα γίγνεσθαι" αἱ γὰρ νῦν οὖσαι πόλεις ξύμμαχοι ἀδύνατοι, 
Νάξος καὶ Κατάνη. εἰ δὲ προσγενήσεται ἐν ἔτι τοῖς πολεμίοις, ὥστε τὰ 
τρέφοντα ἡμᾶς χωρία τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας... πρὸς ἐκείνους χωρῆσαι, διαπολε- 
μήσεται αὐτοῖς ἀμαχεὶ ἐκπολιορκηθέντων ἡμῶν ὁ πόλεμος. 

The words ἀνάγκη ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔχοντες κιτιλ. are incorrectly opposed 
by ἀλλά to the less general statement, οὐδ᾽ ὁπόθεν ἐπιπληρωσόμεθα x.7.d. 

‘ We cannot even recruit our crews (πληρώματα), but our consump- 
tion (both in men and provisions) must be furnished out of the 


416 THUCYDIDES. 


14. 2. supplies which we brought with us, and these are our only store.’ 
Or giving a slightly different turn to the sentence, ‘The remains 
of what we brought with us is all that we have, and from this 
store our consumption must come’ (γίγνεσθαι). Men must be inm- 
cluded in these words, as the context shows; but the neuter ΠΟΙΩ͂Ι. 5 
τὰ ὄντα καὶ ἀπαναλισκόμενα can hardly refer to men only. There ==ss 
also a logical flaw in the passage. For it would appear from wh===at 
follows, εἰ δὲ προσγενήσεται ἐν ἔτι κιτιλ., that under the words a==—ra 
ὄντα καὶ ἀπαναλισκόμενα (men and stores) the provisions which ttr——e 
Athenians obtained from Italy are not included. ‘We have ncsm-o- 
thing but what we brought with us, and our supplies from Ita_—smly 
may also fail.’ 

For διαπολεμήσεται see note on c. 25. 9. 


15. 2. ὡς τῶν πολεμίων τὰ μὲν ἐν Σικελίᾳ δι᾿ ὁλέγου ποριουμένων, τὰ δ᾽ 
ἐκ Πελοποννήσου σχολαίτερον μέν, ὅμως δ᾽, ἦν μὴ προσέχητε τὴν γνώμι;““ὴὴῖν͵ 
τὰ μὲν λήσουσιν ὑμᾶς, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον, τὰ δὲ φθήσονται. 

τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ Πελοποννήσου, partly acc. of the remote object δῇ — ἐγ 
- λήσουσιν, φθήσονται : partly also acc. after ποριουμένων supplied wi τὰ 
σχολαίτερον. The writer passes from the participle to the fini #e 
verb. τὰ μὲν λήσουσιν, ra δὲ φθήσονται, are subdivisions of tare 
second clause, ra δ᾽ ἐκ Πελοποννήσου x.7.X. 

Although Nicias appears to find fault with the authorities at 
home, he was himself chiefly to blame for the arrival of these ships 
in Sicily. Cp. vi. 10#fin., vii. 1 med., 7 init. | 


19. 2. ἀπέχει δὲ ἡ Δεκέλεια σταδίους μάλιστα τῆς τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων πόλεως εἴκοσι 
καὶ ἑκατόν, παραπλήσιον δὲ καὶ οὐ πολλῷ πλέον καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Βοιωτίας. 
καί, aS Often in such expressions, =‘or,’ cp. v. 74 init. καὶ ἡ μὲν μάχη 
τοιαὕτη καὶ ὅ τι ἐγγύτατα τούτων ἐγένετο. For the geographical diffi- 
culty see Introduction on the Geography of Thucydides. 


20. 1. ἐν δὲ τούτῳ καὶ of ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἅμα [τῆς] Δεκελείας τῷ τειχισμῷ Kai τοῦ ἦρος 
εὐθὺς ἀρχομένου περί τε Πελοπόννησον ναῦς τριάκοντα ἔστειλαν καὶ Χαρικλέα 
τὸν ᾿Απολλοδώρου ἄρχοντα, ᾧ εἴρητο καὶ ἐς “Apyos ἀφικομένῳ κατὰ τὸ ξυμ- 
μαχικὸν παρακαλεῖν ᾿Αργείων τε ὁπλίτας ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς, καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένην 


ἐς τὴν Σικελίαν, ὥσπερ ἔμελλον, ἀπέστελλον x.7.A. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 417 


τέ after ᾿Αργείων has no corresponding clause, either expressed, 20. 1. 
or implied in the words which follow. The harshness is veiled by 
the juxtaposition of καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένην, with which however τέ is 
in sense unconnected. (See note on i. 9. 3. § 3.) 


ξυνέπειθε δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἑρμοκράτης οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῦ ταῖς ναυσὶ ph ἀθυμεῖν 21. 3. 
ἐπιχειρήσειν πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους. 

τοῦ, which is omitted in several MSS., though in none of the first 
rank, may be explained, 1) with Arnold, as a genitive of purpose ; 
or 2) on the analogy of ξυναίρεσθαι (iv. 10 init.), ξυνεπιλαμβάνεσθαι 
(vi 70 init., viii. 26 init., cp. also note on iii. 86. 2), as a genitive 
expressing the idea of a common object to which the persuasion 
of Hermocrates contributed (Classen). 


καὶ πρὸς ἄνδρας τολμηροὺς οἵους καὶ ᾿Αθηναίους τοὺς ἀντιτολμῶντας 21. 3. 
χαλεπωτάτους αὐτοῖς φαίνεσθαι. 

οἵους καὶ ᾿Αθηναίους ΞΞ οἷοι καὶ ᾿Αθηναῖοι εἶεν. καί 48 in ὥσπερ καί, cp. 
note on ν. 13. 1. 


ὦ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τοὺς πέλας, ov δυνάμει ἔστιν ὅτε προὔχοντες, τῷ δὲ θράσει 21. 3. 
ἐπιχειροῦντες, καταφοβοῦσι, καὶ σφᾶς ἂν τὸ αὐτὸ ὁμοίως τοῖς ἐναντίοις. 
ὑποσχεῖν. 

@...1d ard. The quality, or more precisely the audacity 
(θράσος), with which the Athenians terrified their enemies, they, the 
Syracusans, would likewise exhibit towards (lit. ‘present to’) the 
Athenians. For σφᾶς see note on iv. 36, 1. 


ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ δύο τειχίσματα ἡλίσκετο, ἐν τούτῳ Kat οἱ Συρακόσιοι. 48, 2. 
ἐτύγχανον ἤδη νικώμενοι. 

καί, Either 1) ‘the Syracusans also who had previously been 
conquerors;’ or ‘the Syracusans in their turn;’ or 2) καί points out 
the connection of the two clauses ἐπειδή κιτιλ, and ἐν τούτῳ κιτιλ,, 
‘at the time when the forts were being taken, the Syracusans 
were also being defeated.’ 


καὶ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέκτειναν πλὴν ὅσον ἐκ τριῶν νεῶν 28. 4. 
obs ἐζώγρησαν. 
VOL. Π. Ee 


23. 4. 


25. 


25. 6. 


25. 6. 


45. 9. 


μή 
ΓῚ 


418 THUCYDIDES. 


Either ὅσον and οὖς are pleonastic: or we may supply ἃ general 
idea such as ἦν after ὅσον: cp. viii. 70 init. καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς, 
εὐχαῖς καὶ θυσίαις καθιστάμενοι ἐς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐχρήσαντο. 


πρέσβεις ἄγουσα, οἵπερ τὰ σφέτερα φράσωσιν. . . καὶ ἐποτρύνωσι. 

οἴπερ Ξε ὅπως, like ‘qui’ in Latin, a usage of which this seems to be 
a solitary instance in Attic Greek. Perhaps we should read ὅκως 
with Vat. H., or φράσουσιν with Aug. In the latter case ἐποτρύνωσι 
which follows must be explained as an anacoluthon. 


ναῦν μυριοφύρον. 

A vessel of ten thousand talents. That a talent is the measure 
to be supplied is probable from the use of the same standard in 
several other places. Herod. i. 194. 5, ii. 96. 7, Thuc. iv. 118.5 
(Arn.) Such a vessel would be about 250 tons burden. 


ἔκ Te τῶν ἀκάτων ὥνευον ἀναδούμενοι τοὺς σταυροὺς καὶ ἄνέκλων. 

ἀνέκλων, either 1) ‘ bent or forced them out of their place,’ or 2) 
‘broke them off.’ The word need not necessarily mean ‘break, 
as may be seen by the following examples: Eur. Or. 1471,— 

ὥμοις ἀριστεροῖσιν ἀνακλάσας δέρην : 

Lucian. de Gymn. 7, ἡ δεξιὰ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀνακεκλασμένη. If 1) 
be adopted, ἀνέκλων will be distinguighed from ὥνευον only as the 
result from the process. The same ambiguity occurs in ii. 76 fin. 
ἄλλας δὲ (μηχανὰς) ἄλλῃ τοῦ τείχους, ds βρόχους re περιβάλλοντες ἀνέκλων 


οἱ Πλαταιῆς x.1.A. 


ἀγγέλλοντας τήν τε τοῦ Πλημμυρίου λῆψιν, καὶ τῆς ναυμαχίας πέρι, ὡς οὐ 
τῶν πολεμίων ἰσχύϊ μᾶλλον ἣ τῇ σφετέρᾳ ταραχῇ ἡσσηθεῖεν, τά τε ἄλλα αἷ 
δηλώσοντας ὅτι ἐν ἐλπίσιν εἰσί, καὶ ἀξιώσοντας ξυμβοηθεῖν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. 

Either 1) against the Athenians and their allies understood from 
πολεμίων ; Or 2) to the assistance of the Syracusans. Cp. note on 
i. 116. 3. But according to 2) σφᾶς would be more regular. 


καί, ἣν φθάσωσιν αὐτοὶ πρότερον διαφθείραντες τὸ παρὸν στράτευμα αὐτῶν, 
διαπολεμησόμενον. 
διαπολεμησόμενον (not διαπεπολεμησόμενον which is found in the 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 419 


Vat., and with a trifling variation, των for -ov, in H. and adopted 26. g. 
by Bekker) is probably the true reading. The simple future gives 
a sufficient sense, and the use of the middle in a passive sense 
may be defended by πολεμήσεται, viii. 43 med., πολεμήσονται, i. 68 
fin., and by c. 14. 3 (quoted above), where most MSS. have δια- 


πολεμήσεται. 


καὶ ὁ μὲν Δημοσθένης εὐθύς, ἐπειδὴ ξυγκατέλαβε τὸ χωρίον, ἐπέπλει ἐπὶ 26. 3. 
τῆς Κερκύρας. 

ξυγκατέλαβε, ‘when he had assisted Charicles in occupying the 
position.’ 

ἐπέπλει is the reading of nearly every MS. Η. has παρέπλει, Vat. 
ἐπιπαρέπλει. For ἐπι- meaning ‘to,’ without any connotation of 
‘ against,’ or hostility, cp. note on iv. 60. 2. 


ἐπειδὴ yap ἡ Δεκέλεια τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὑπὸ πάσης τῆς στρατιᾶς ἐν τῷ θέρει 27. 3. 
τούτῳ τειχισθεῖσα, ὕστερον δὲ φρουραῖς ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων κατὰ διαδοχὴν 
χρόνου ἐπιούσαις τῇ χώρᾳ ἐπῳκεῖτο, πολλὰ ἔβλαπτε τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους. 

1) The clauses connected by μέν---δέ are not quite parallel. The 
construction is changed, and the participle, τειχισθεῖσα, passes into 
the finite verb, érexeiro. Cp. note oni. 9. 3. ὃ 5. 

Or 2) the two clauses τὸ μὲν πρῶτον... τειχισθεῖσα, ὕστερον δὲ 
φρουραῖς... ἐπιούσαις, though in different constructions, answer to 
one another, and are both subordinate to ἐπῳκεῖτο. 

τῇ χώρᾳ is best taken, not with émovcas, but with émpxeiro. ‘For 
when Decelea was occupied to the annoyance of the country,’ etc. 


τότε δὲ ξυνεχῶς ἐπικαθημένων, καὶ ὁτὲ μὲν καὶ πλεόνων ἐπιόντων, ὁτὲ δ᾽ 27. 4. 
ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῆς ἴσης φρουρᾶς καταθεούσης τε τὴν χώραν καὶ λῃστείας 
'ποιουμένης K.T.A, 

ἴσης, lit. ‘the same as before,’ is opposed to πλεόνων, and thus 
comes to mean the regular or ordinary garrison, opposed to the 
larger army which the Lacedaemonians sent from time to time. 

Both are subordinate in sense to ξυνεχῶς ἐπικαθημένων. ‘The Lace- 
daemonians were always there; sometimes with a smaller, some- 
times with a larger army.’ 


καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ πόλις εἶναι φρούριον κατέστη. 28. I. 


E¢€2 


420 THUCYDIDES. 


28.1. Cp. Aristoph. Lysistr. 555 (acted in 411),— 
IIPOBOYAOS, ri ποιησάσας ; 
AYSIZTPATH. ἣν παύσωμεν πρώτιστον μὲν ξὺν ὅπλοισιν 

ἀγοράζοντας καὶ μαινομένους. TYNH. νὴ τὴν Παφίαν "Adpodiny. 

AY, νῦν μὲν γὰρ δὴ κἀν ταῖσι χύτραις κἀν τοῖς λαχάνοισιν ὁμοίως 
περιέρχονται κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ξὺν ὅπλοις ὥσπερ Κορύβαντες. 

ΠΡΟ. νὴ Aia’ χρὴ γὰρ τοὺς ἀνδρείους. AY. καὶ μὴν τό γε πρᾶγμα γέλοιον, 
ὅταν ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔχων καὶ Τοργόνα τις κᾷτ᾽ ὠνῆται Kopaxivous. 


48. 2. πρὸς γὰρ τῇ ἐπάλξει τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν κατὰ διαδοχὴν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι φυλάσ- 
σοντες, τὴν δὲ νύκτα καὶ ξύμπαντες, πλὴν τῶν ἱππέων, οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ὅσλοι 
ποιούμενοι, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους, καὶ θέρους καὶ χειμῶνος ἐταλαιπωροῦντο, 

ποιούμενοι, SCil. τὴν φυλακήν. Vat. and H. read, not ποιούμενοι, but 
πού, which is out of place, and sounds more like Plato thao 
Thucydides. 


28. 3. τὸ γὰρ αὐτοὺς πολιορκουμένους ἐπιτειχισμῷ ὑπὸ Πελοποννησίων μηδ' bs 
ἀποστῆναι ἐκ Σικελίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ Συρακούσας τῷ αὐτῷ τρόπῳ ἀντιπολιορκεῦ, 
πόλιν οὐδὲν ἐλάσσω αὐτήν γε καθ᾽ αὑτὴν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, καὶ τὸν παράλογον 
τοσοῦτον ποιῆσαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ τόλμης, ὅσον κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς 
τοῦ πολέμον οἱ μὲν ἐνιαυτόν, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ τριῶν γε ἐτῶν, οὐδεὶς πλείω 
χρόνον, ἐνόμιζον περιοίσειν αὐτούς, εἰ οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι ἐσβάλοιεν ἐς τὴν 
χώραν, ὥστε ἔτει ἑπτακαιδεκάτῳ μετὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐσβολὴν ἦλθον ἐς Σικελίαν» 
ἤδη τῷ πολέμῳ κατὰ πάντα τετρυχωμένοι, καὶ πόλεμον οὐδὲν ἐλάσσω" 
προσανείλοντο τοῦ πρότερον ὑπάρχοντος ἐκ Πελοποννήσου. 

There is no main verb in this sentence. Thucydides probably 
meant to wind up with some such expression as πάνυ ἄτοπον or ΖΕ ᾿ 
ἀνέλπιστον ἦν, but in this, as in other discursive passages, the latter 7 
end has forgotten the beginning ; the concluding words ὥστε éra=™ = 

. ἐκ Πελοποννήσου having the appearance of an inference from ans = 
independent statement, the writer is led to omit the real conclusion — ™ 
To take so long a sentence either as an explanation of what ha ===> 
preceded, or as an exclamation, would be extremely harsh. 

αὐτῆς ye xa’ αὑτήν is to be supplied with τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων (πολέως) frome 

᾿ πόλιν οὐδὲν ἐλάσσω αὐτήν ye xa αὑτήν. The comparison is betwcenm™ 
Syracuse as a mere city and Athens as a mere city without Attica oc— 
her empire. ‘If the two cities taken by themselves are compared. ~ 


NOTES, BOOK VI, 421 


τοσοῦτον ποιῆσαι... ὅσον κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς .. . ἐνόμιζον, . .. ὥστε ἔτει érra- 28, 3. 
καιδεκάτῳ. ὅσον and ὥστε both follow τοσοῦτον, although they are gram- 
matically incompatible. ὅσον expresses the measure of the παράλογος: 
τοσοῦτον 6cov==‘to a degree which may be measured by the fact that.’ 
‘Creating an impression so’ (or ‘in so great a degree) contradictory 
to the opinion entertained in Hellas of their power and daring, 
that the rest of the Hellenes at first thought them likely to survive 
only a year, or two, or at most three years, no one for a longer 
period; and that’ (or ‘ whereas) seventeen years after the first in- 
vasion of Attica,’ etc. The whole sentence ὥστε ἔτει κιτιλ. is 
dependent on τοσοῦτον, to which ὅσον is subordinated. The writer 
might have said either τοσοῦτον ὅσον κατ᾽ ἀρχάς κιτιλ.. .. οἱ δὲ eet 
ἑπτακαιδεκάτῳ, OF τοσοῦτον ὥστε κατ᾽ ἀρχάς x.r.rA.... οἱ δὲ ἔτει ἑπτακαιδε- 
«dry. The complexity of the sentence is caused by the attempt to 
combine the two. The ‘great surprise’ (τοσοῦτον ὅσον) consisted, 
not merely in the general anticipation of Hellas, but in the contrast 
of it with the actual fact. For ὅσον cp. iv. 108 med. ἐψευσμένοις 
μὲν τῆς ᾿Αθηναίων δυνάμεως ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὅση ὕστερον διεφάνη. 


καὶ τὴν εἰκοστὴν ὑπὸ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον τῶν κατὰ θάλασσαν ἀντὶ τοῦ 28. 4. 
φόρου τοῖς ὑπηκόοις ἐποίησαν, πλείω νομίζοντες ἂν σφίσι χρήματα οὕτω 
προσιέναι. 

It is evident, as Boeckh (Staatshaush, i. p. 432 n., 440) remarks, 
that this five per cent. duty was collected, not at the Piraeus, but at 
the harbours of the subject states. How long this method of 
collecting the revenue continued we cannot tell. It may at once 
have proved a failure. On the one hand, Xen. Hell. i. 3. 9 (about 
409 B.c.), we find the town of Chalcedon again paying tribute :-— 
acni ὅρκους ἔλαβον καὶ ἔδοσαν παρὰ Φαρναβάζου, ὑπυτελεῖν τὸν φόρον Xad- 
δεηδονίους ᾿Αθηναίοις, ὅσονκερ εἰώθεσαν, καὶ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα χρήματα ἀποδοῦναι. 
On the other hand, mention occurs in Aristoph. Frogs 362 (acted 
405) of an εἰκοστόλογος, ---- 

) τἀπόῤῥητ᾽ ἀποπέμπει 
ἐξ Αἰγίης Θωρυκίων ὦν, εἰκοστολόγος κακοδαίμων. 
But the εἰκοστή here spoken of may be a special impost confined 
to Aegina and perhaps the neighbouring islands (see Boeckh, 
Staatshaush. ii. p. 588). 


28. 4. 


29. 3. 


29. 4. 


29. 5. 


90. 


I. 


2. 


422 THUCYDIDES. 


Two points strike us as remarkable respecting this impost: 
a) that a five per cent. duty on the commerce in Greek waters 
should have produced more than 1200 talents: 4) the extreme 
difficulty of collecting such a revenue, and the number of officers 
which would be required for it. 


καὶ εἰπόντες dua ἐν τῷ mapdnAw ... καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους, ἤν τε δύνηται, 
ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν βλάψαι. 

ἀπό has a more lively and casual meaning than διά or ὑπό, ‘to 
get anything out of them which he could in the way of damage 
to the enemy.’ 


τῇ πόλει προσέκειτο οὔσῃ οὗ μεγάλῃ. 
It is clear that οὐ must be introduced from the Vatican MS. 
and H. For at the end ofc. 30 it is implied that the town was 


not large, ὡς ἐπὶ μεγέθει. 


τὸ γὰρ γένος τὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν ὁμοῖα τοῖς μάλιστα τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ὦ 
θαρσήσῃ, φονικώτατόν ἐστι. 

1)" There may be a confusion of two expressions, ‘are the 
bloodiest of barbarians,’ and ‘ are as bloody as the worst barbaria 0S- 
Or 2) ‘the Thracians, like the worst barbarians, are most bloody 
when they feel themselves secure.’ See note on English text. 


καὶ ξυμφορὰ ry πόλει πάσῃ οὐδεμιᾶς ἥσσων μᾶλλον ἑτέρας ἀδόκεηγτῶ: 

τε ἐπέπεσεν αὕτη καὶ δεινή. 
νᾶλλον ἑτέρας iS not connected with οὐδεμιᾶς ἥσσων, but wit 3 

ἀδόκητός τε καὶ δειή. Thucydides means to say that the massacr® 
of the children was a calamity which by its nature inflicted a blow=™ 
upon the whole city, and that it was as great as any on record == 
and lest this last expression should seem exaggerated, he adds, by ~ 
way of explanation, that it was more sudden and more horrible 
than any other. That the words are not a mere general reflection 
on the fate of the city is shown by their connection with the pre- 
ceding description implied in ξυμφορὰ αὕτη, and by the occurrence 
of such a reflection at the end of the next chapter. 


τῶν τε ἐν τοῖς πλοίοις, ὡς ἑώρων τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὁρμισάντων ἔξω τοξεύματος 


τὰ πλοῖα. 


ἔξω “aber GLOGIT™ ΞΕ ΤΟ: : Ξ - τ ΣΣ τς Ἂς 
Bos ἥρυσπ τ wees oes oC » - “east 


res ts ευκορουγισιοα, λα “τ Eee. a. 


ὁ δὲ τεμεουτῶνης τε coomre το τς σας ας .ι-: ee ΤΣ 
ναὸς “Wye. went were -w ὅσια -- Sater = - & Cae 
ἀπλίται er -τν Σικελίαν Seesaw τείας. Some ὧν es we. 

@ Sometios goa, ee Lom tis ttt τς 
ce s meres oe mT ees τς ς τὐ πος 
ben ureucy mercomes - 5 13. τὸ ta τ τ τσ τὸ 
Ὑβρ Ser Ξ act mrence: © τῦξι- π΄ π rer rom one cits: 
for her were στ ul m wart i ξαιτ τοῖς. 


SPeasar Fn Teme am gor. να may Scour : ol. Oo ™ τ 


> os . -. = 
BCU αὐτὰ GET “we ταλάτιων AEE Ea το 


'παταλσιν -ἰ tTnarcuce = sa ee te oer ον» et Sy i πὸ δὶ ser 


Se set sha Ser sescie soente” | Te corse αὶ σπιτιοῦ ine! 
© og Sema τέσσ τὸς Se ede . 

“ΟΣ  :-ο: πὸ Se ace. curs Se τεσσ τ τ risers: Tit 
ἐν ΠΩΣ τ: mar Se ΞΞ35:ιΞ: 


»αξυαγε τὰ uettaera “ἘτΞ eat τ᾿ stl τῦ τσ τ Σ 


—m “- -ὦ 
- 


=O a mere τεσεςξηπ cf the στο ἘΞ ἘΠῚ Ξε, 


- πα ὦν eee £ -- 


ores μὴ διαψήσουσι τοὺς τολευ ἐς. 32: 


dapyrocen fas been unnecessary σττεςις De Detiss imo 
δι αὐρήσοισιν, supported by Aristorh. Birds 193.— 
τῶν μηρίων τὴν woos οἱ δι σώσετε. 
Bur a parallel passage or a more lively expression are Ret sufi- 
cient reasons for changing the reading of the MSS. And tcis not 
certain that διαφρήσουσι would apply to ‘letting through by negh- 
gence’ equally with διαφήσουσιν. 


" γι a 
καὶ τοὺς Meramovriovs πείσαντες κατὰ τὸ ξυμμαχικὸν ἀκυντιστών ce Ul 


43: 


424 THUCYDIDES. 


33. 5. ξυμπέμπειν τριακοσίους καὶ τριήρεις δύο καὶ ἀναλαβόντες ταῦτα παρέπλευσεν 
ἐς Θουρίαν. 
ταῦτα, though harsh, is probably the true reading, and not ai-s-us 
(Vat. and corr. H.) The latter would imply that the three hundr-eed 
javelin-men were placed on board the two triremes, but there world 
not have been sufficient room for them in addition to the rowerss— 


84. 6. οἱ μὲν yap Κορίνθιοι καὶ Πελοποννήσιοι πρὸς τῇ γῇ ναυμαχοῦντες mahi 
διεσώζοντο. 
‘Fighting close to the land, were in consequence saved.’ ad 
emphasizes the connection between πρὸς τῇ yp and διεσώζοντο. 


34. 7. καὶ νομίσαντες δι᾿ αὐτὸ οὐχ ἡσσᾶσθαι δι’ ὅπερ οὐδ᾽ of ἕτεροι νικᾶν. οἷ τε 
γὰρ Κορίνθιοι ἡγήσαντο κρατεῖν εἰ μὴ [καὶ] πολὺ ἐκρατοῦντο, of τε ᾿Αθηννκκῖοι 
ἐνόμιζον ἡσσᾶσθαι ὅτι οὐ πολὺ ἐνίκων. 

The Corinthians raised a trophy because, while they acknhow- 
ledged the battle to have been drawn (νομίσαντες x.r.d.), they also 
thought that the avoidance of defeat on their part was equivalent 
to a victory. 

δι αὐτό is emphatic, ‘ for the very reason for which.’ Itrefers, r2Ot 
to what precedes, but to what follows, and corresponds to δ᾽ ὅτε. 
Cp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 14, εἴρηκας, ἔφη, αὐτὸ δὲ ὅπερ ἔγωγε τὰ FMA 
ἔργα πλείστου ἄξια νομίζω εἶναι : Dem. in Steph. A. (xlv) 61, daaoe #” 
yap ὀμωμόκατε ὑμεῖς ov περὶ ὧν ἂν ὁ φεύγων ἀξιοῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν by 
ἡ δίωξις 7. 

36. 1. οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι ἐν τούτῳ πυνθανόμενοι αὐτῶν τὸν ἐπίπλουν αὖθις ra 

ναυσὶν ἀποπειρᾶσαι ἐβούλοντο καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ παρασκευῇ τοῦ πεζοῦ, im 

ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, πρὶν ἔλθεῖν αὐτοὺς φθάσαι βουλόμενοι, ξυνέλεγον. 

The Syracusans had two objects in obtaining reinforcements, © 

a) that they might have a trial of strength, én’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, sci. Ὃ΄ 

drometpacat, δ) that if possible the trial of strength should take place 

before the Athenian reinforcements arrived (πρὶν ἐλθεῖν φθάσαι 
βουλόμενοι), these words being a resumption or explanation in detail 

of ἀποπειρᾶσαι ἐβούλοντο. For the latter motive cp. c. 25 fin 

ξυνέλεγον, ‘had been collecting.’ For the imperfect, expressing 

duration of time in the abstract, cp. note on v. 50. 3. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 425 


καὶ τὰς πρώρας τῶν νεῶν ξυντεμόντες és ἔλασσον στεριφωτέρας ἐποίησαν, 36. 1. 
καὶ τὰς ἐπωτίδας ἐπέθεσαν ταῖς πρώραις παχείας, καὶ ἀντήριδας ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ὑπέτειναν πρὸς τοὺς τοίχους ὡς ἐπὶ δξ πήχεις ἐντός τε καὶ ἔξωθεν. ᾧπερ 
τρόπῳ καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι πρὸς τὰς ἐν τῇ Νανπάκτῳ ναῦς ἐπισκενασάμενοι 
πρώραθεν ἐναυμάχουν. 

The prows of the vessels were cut down and made broader, 
and the ἐπωτίδες, or ear-caps, shortened. These were thick beams 
which projected obliquely (like horns) on either side of the prow, 
and were supported by stays, ἀντήριδες, altogether twelve cubits in 
length, which ran from the under or inner surface of the ére- 
rides, through the side of the ship, and were made fast inside the 
hull. They appear to have been used to crush in or to rip up the 
sides of an enemy’s prow, when the beaks of the two vessels 
did not actually meet, cp. c. 34 med., ἀντίπρωροι ἐμβαλλόμεναι 
Kai ἀναῤῥαγεῖσαι ras παρεξειρεσίας ὑπὸ τῶν Κορινθίων νεῶν, én’ αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο παχυτέρας τὰς ἐπωτίδας ἐχουσῶν. For figures of the ἐπωτίδες 
and ἀντήριδες see Graser, De Veterum Re Navali, tab. ii, iii. 
The words of the present passage, ὡς ἐπὶ ἐξ πήχεις ἐντός re καὶ 
ἔξωθεν, might of themselves mean that the ἀντήριδες were six cubits 
or nine feet long altogether ; but the size and proportions of the 
ancient trireme prove that the meaning is ‘six cubits inside, and six 
outside the ship’s side :᾿ Graser, Philologus, 1871, p. 35, n. 

It is remarkable that this rather obvious device is ascribed, not 
to the Athenians, but to the Corinthians, vi. 34 med., who were 
themselves the first regular naval architects, and the first builders 
of triremes, i. 13 init. 


ἀντίπρωροι yap ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς χρώμενοι ἀναῤῥήξειν τὰ πρώραθεν αὐτοῖς 36. 3. 
στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι, πρὸς κοῖλα καὶ ἀσθενῆ παρέχοντες, τοῖς ἐμβόλοις, 
στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι.. .. τοῖς ἐμβόλοις, dative of instrument after 
ἀναῤῥήξειν. παρέχοντες, 501]. τὰ ἔμβολα, With their stout and solid 
beaks, which they would present against the hollow and weak ones 
of the Athenians. The punctuation here adopted brings out the 
construction. The reading of Vat., παίοντες, is obviously a conjecture. 


τῇ τε πρότερον ἀμαθίᾳ τῶν κυβερνητῶν δοκούσῃ εἶναι τὸ ἀντίπρωρον 36. 5. 
ξυγκροῦσαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὶ χρήσασθαι. 


96. 5. 


86. 6. 


96. 6. 


37.1. 


97. 


2. 


426 THUCYDIDES. 


ξυγκρούσει, the reading of the majority of the MSS., has been 
rightly altered into ξυγκροῦσαι. 
For the so called ‘ accusative of reference’ cp. note on ii. 87. πε. 


προσπίπτοντας ἀλλήλοις ταράξεσθαι, ὅπερ καὶ ἔβλαπτε μάλιστα τκαν ws 


᾿Αθηναίους. 


καί, ‘which actually proved most detrimental to the Athenians. “~ 


περιπλεῦσαι δὲ ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, σφῶν ἐχόντων Thy ἐπίπλευσιν ξε -ποὸ 
τοῦ πελάγους τε καὶ ἀνάκρουσιν, οὐ δυνήσεσθαι αὐτούς, ἄλλως τε «ἰῷ «αἱ 
τοῦ Πλημμυρίον πολεμίου τε αὐτοῖς ἐσομένον καὶ τοῦ στόματος οὐ μεγάξεω... FU 
ὄντος τοῦ λιμένος. 

Thucydides has explained in the earlier part of the chapter tr-2m =at 
the Syracusans would not hesitate to charge beak to beak, becaum ==¢ 
they would be exposed to no danger from the ordinary manceuvr- «== 5 
of the enemy (διέκπλους, περίπλους, and ἀνάκρουσιε). For the Sys == 
cusans themselves would take care to prevent the διέκπλους; t am ὁ 
περίπλους could not be executed in a confined space: and tka < 
Athenians could only back (dvaxpovex) into the small part of (za ““ 
harbour which was occupied by their own encampment. Fie 
now adds that they could not take advantage of the open sea 1: — 
order to sail round the Syracusan ships before striking (περίπλους λιν 
because the mouth of the harbour was in the hands of their 
enemies. 

ἀνάκρουσις, from the simple meaning of backing water, has 
acquired the technical meaning of backing with a view to striking. 
ἐπίπλευσιν, avaxpovow, which are included under the same article, 
seem to be two parts of the same movement. The Syracusans, 
having command of the entrance to the harbour, could charge the 
enemy’s vessel from the open sea, and retire in order to make the 
charge. 


τοιαῦτα of Συρακόσιοι πρὸς THY ἑαυτῶν ἐπιστήμην τε καὶ δύναμιν ἐπινοή- 
σαντες κιτὰλ. 

I.e. having adapted their ships to a direct attack rather than to 
the manceuvres in which the Athenians excelled. 


καὶ τὸν μὲν πεζὸν OAlyp πρότερον τὸν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Γύλιππος προεξ- 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 427 


αγαγὼν προσῆγε τῷ τείχει τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, καθ᾽ ὅσον πρὸς τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ 87. 2. 
ἑώρα. 

καθ᾽ ὅσον x.r.4. means the side of the wall facing Syracuse. The 
iriner side of the wall would probably be attacked by Gylippus 
either on the heights (if the Athenians still retained their lines 
there) or lower down, or both, and the other side by the troops from 
the Olympieum, on the lower ground near the marsh. αὐτοῦ, scil. 
τοῦ τείχους, to be joined with καθ᾽ ὅσον. 


οὐδέτεροι δυνάμενοι ἄξιόν τε λόγου παραλαβεῖν, εἰ μὴ ναῦν μίαν ἣ δύο 88. 1. 
τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων οἱ Συρακόσιοι καταδύσαντες, διεκρίθησαν». 

παραλαβεῖν, 501]. ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων. 

καταδύσαντες is dependent on ἄξιόν τι παρέλαβον understood, ‘ ex- 
cept in so far as the Syracusans gained an advantage by sinking 
one or two ships of the Athenians.’ 


διαλειπούσας δὲ τὰς ὁλκάδας ὅσον δύο πλέθρα dn’ ἀλλήλων κατέ- 88. 3. 
στησεν. 

The merchant vessels were anchored at the entrance of the 
palisade or temporary Athenian dock, leaving an interval of about 
200 feet. There were probably several such vessels, and several 
entrances. It is not easy to understand how an interval of about 
200 feet can have been commanded by the dolphins. But may we 
not suppose that, although this was the space between the merchant 
vessels which were drawn up in front of the palisade, nevertheless the 
passage was narrowed by a portion of the palisade itself, which left 
on either side only sufficient room for a trireme to pass where the 
dolphins were placed? ‘This explanation agrees fairly with the text, 
though not perfectly suitable to the words διὰ τῶν ὁλκάδων in c. 41. 
The descriptions of Thucydides are graphic, but not always clear, 
sometimes owing to the omission of some small point which he 
does not perceive to be necessary for the comprehension of the 
whole description. The dolphin (cp. c. 41) was suddenly let down 
from a crane placed on their decks upon a ship passing near, and 
struck with such effect on the light frame of the trireme as to 
sink it. The manner of its action is well explained by two 
verses which the Scholiast on Aristophanes, Knights, 761, cites 


88. 3. out of Pherecrates; the lines as emended by Meineke are as 


40. 4. 


40. 5. 


42. 2. 


428 THUCYDIDES. 


follows :— 
ὁ δὲ δὴ δελφίς ἐστι μολιβδοῦς δελφινοφόρος re Kepovyxos 
ὃς διακόψει τοὔδαφος αὐτῶν ἐμπίπτων καὶ καταδύων. 


Compare also the more lively language of Aristophanes himself, 


lLej— 
ἀλλὰ φυλάττου, καὶ πρὶν ἐκεῖνον προσικέσθαι σου, πρότερον σὺ 
τοὺς δελφῖνας μετεωρίζον καὶ τὴν ἄκατον παραβάλλου. 


Graser (§ 82) thinks that the dolphin was attached to the οται.- τ Ὲ 
from which it was let down in such a manner that it could 24 


drawn up after sinking an enemy’s ship and used again. 


ἔπειτα οὐκ ἐδόκει τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν διαμέλλοντας κῶτε “(ΒΡ 


ἁλίσκεσθαι. 


ἁλίσκεσθαι “ἴο be overcome’ (by sleep, toil, deceit) with an 8550- 


ciation of suddenness or unconsciousness. 

ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν may go either with διαμέλλοντας, ‘ through a delay 
which was their own fault’ (cp. vi. 37 fin. οὐκ ἐπὶ πολὺ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων 
ἱππέων ἐξιόντες), OF With ἁλίσκεσθαι, or with both. 


πολὺ δ᾽ ἔτι μείζω of ἐν τοῖς λεπτοῖς πλοίοις περιπλέοντες τῶν Συρα- 
κοσίων καὶ ἔς τε τοὺς ταρσοὺς ὑποπίπτοντες τῶν πολεμίων νεῶν καὶ ἐς τὰ 
πλάγια παραπλέοντες καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐς τοὺς ναύτας ἀκοντίζοντες. 

ταρσούς, either 1)* the blades of the oars, or 2) the whole broad- 
side; cp. Polyb. xvi. 3. 12, αὐτὸς μὲν ἥμαρτε τοῦ τρῶσαι, παραπεσὼν δὲ 
τοῖς πολεμίοις ἀπέβαλε τὸν δεξιὸν ταρσὸν τῆς νεώς. ἐξ αὐτῶν, 501]. ἐκ τῶν 


πλοίων. 


καὶ τοῖς μὲν Συρακοσίοις καὶ ξυμμάχοις κατάπληξις ἐν τῷ αὐτίκα οὐκ ὀλίγη 
ἐγένετο, εἰ πέρας μηδὲν ἔσται σφίσι τοῦ ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοῦ κινδύνου, ὁρῶντες 
οὔτε διὰ τὴν Δεκέλειαν τειχιζομένην οὐδὲν ἧσσον στρατὸν ἴσον καὶ παραπλή- 
σιον τῷ προτέρῳ ἐπεληλυθότα, τήν τε τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων δύναμιν πανταχόσε 
πολλὴν φαινομένην. 

τοῦ ἀπαλλαγῆναι, explanatory gen., ‘no end in the way of deliver- 
ance from.’ Cp. Dem. in Boeot. (x1.) 49, ri yap ἂν ἦν πέρας ἡμῖν τοῦ 
διαλυθῆναι ; 

οὔτε... οὐδὲν ἧσσον, ‘not on that account a whit the less.’ οὔτε, 
resumed by οὐδέν, answers to τέ which follows. 


--» 


NOTES, BOOK VII, 429 


νομίσας οὐχ οἷόν re εἶναι διατρίβειν, οὐδὲ παθεῖν ὅπερ ὁ Νικίας 42. 3. 
ἔπαθεν κιτὰλ. 


παθεῖνΞ- δεῖν παθεῖν. 


καὶ ὁρῶν τὸ παρατείχισμα τῶν Συρακοσίων, ᾧ ἐκώλυσαν περιτειχίσαι 42. 4. 
σφᾶς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, ἁπλοῦν τε ὃν καί, εἰ ἐπικρατήσειέ τις τῶν ᾿Επιπολῶν 
τῆς ἀναβάσεως καὶ αὖθις τοῦ ἐν αὐταῖς στρατοπέδον, ῥᾳδίως ἂν αὐτὸ ληφθέν, 
(οὐδὲ γὰρ ὑπομεῖναι ἂν σφᾶς οὐδένα,) ἠπείγετο ἐπιθέσθαι τῇ πείρᾳ. 

The object of the night attack on Epipolae was to capture by 
a surprise, and from the further end, the Syracusan cross-wall 
which Demosthenes had failed to take by an open assault in front. 
The details are obscure, owing to our ignorance of the point at 
which the cross-wall terminated. That it did not, as Mr. Grote 
supposes, extend to the fort which the Syracusans had erected on 
or near the Euryelus has been sufficiently shown in the note on 
vii. 7.1. Whether it reached the northern cliff of Epipolae ata 
nearer point we are not informed (see the same note, ad fin.) 
If it did, the Athenian army must still have taken it in front, and 
would have had only the advantage of a surprise. If it did not, 
their object must have been to get round it and attack it from 
behind, or from both sides. This supposition harmonizes better 
a) with the assumption which Demosthenes seems to make, that 
the capture of the τείχισμα would involve the capture of the cross- 
wall, c. 42 fin. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ὑπομεῖναι σφᾶς οὐδένα, δ) with the cursory 
manner in which Thucydides mentions the capture of the cross- 
wall, as if it were a task of no difficulty, 43. 5, ἄλλοι δέ κατὰ c) with 
the forward movement of the Athenians described in the words 
immediately preceding, καὶ αὐτοί μεν x.r.A. The movement must have 
taken place on the northern side of the Syracusan counter-wall to 
be of any importance ; and yet, as the narrative shows, it must have 
commenced before the cross-wall was actually taken. How could 
this have been, if the wall ran as far as the northern cliff ? 

The above argument supposes the Euyrelus to have been Bel- 
vedere, the knoll at the summit of Epipolae. But, if with Holm, 
we assume the Euryelus to have been Mongibellisi, nearer the city, 
the Syracusan cross-wall may have reached the northern cliff beyond 
it. So that the Athenians, when they ascended by the Euryelus, 
would be within the cross-wall. 


43. 2. 


43. 4. 


43. 5. 


430 THUCYDIDES. 


τοὺς λιθολόγους καὶ τέκτονας πάντας λαβὼν καὶ ἄλλην παρασκευὴν rofer 
μάτων τε καὶ ὅσα ἔδει, ἣν κρατῶσι, τειχίζοντας ἔχειν. 

The place of τοξεύματα between carpenters and siege implements 
affords no reason for doubting the reading. Archers were ment 
needed in a siege than in a battle. 


οἱ δὲ πλείους διαφυγόντες εὐθὺς πρὸς τὰ στρατόπεδα, ἃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν 
᾿Επιπολῶν τρία [ἐν προτειχίσμασιν] «.r.A. 

The reading ἐν προτειχίσμασιν after τρία, which would mean ‘in 
the midst of outworks,’ whether those of the city or those of the 
three camps themselves, although read by Vat. and H., has #00 
little MS. authority to support it, and is probably a gloss tale<en 
from ἐκ τῶν προτειχισμάτων in ὃ 6 infra. The camps were probably 
behind the counter-wall. 


καὶ αὐτοὶ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐχώρουν és τὸ πρόσθεν, ὅπως τῇ παρούσῃ ὁρμῆ τοῦ 
περαίνεσθαι ὧν ἕνεκα ἦλθον μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνται ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς 
πρώτης παρατείχισμα τῶν Συρακοσίων, οὐχ ὑπομενόντων τῶν φυλάκων, 
ὕρουν τε καὶ τὰς ἐπάλξεις ἀπέσυρον. 

τοῦ περαίνεσθαι, ‘that while the impetus to accomplish their work 
continued in them,’ either 1)* ‘they might make a quick end of it;’ 
or 2) giving a feebler sense to μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνταιΞ- ὑστερήσωνται, 
‘they might not flag in the execution of it,’ (Schol.), The gen. 
τοῦ περαίνεσθαι is to be taken with μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνται, as well as 
with τῇ παρούσῃ ὁρμῇ. 

τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης παρατείχισμα, 1)* a periphrastic expression for 
‘the first part of the παρατείχισμα :᾿ cp. ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα, c. 37 med. 
For τῆς πρώτης Cp. τοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἐχθροῦ, iii. 40 fin.: ἀπὸ πρώτης, 1. 77 
med. : τὴν πρώτην, Herod. i. 153. 6, iii. 134. 8: Dem. Olynth. iii. 2. 
In such cases words like μοίρας, ἐφόδου, or ὁρμῆς, have been some- 
times supplied. But it is better, instead of supplying substantives 
which are never present to the mind, and sometimes interfere with 
the sense, to regard the adverbial use in ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης and the 
Jike expressions as appropriate to the feminine no less than to the 
neuter. Or as Lobeck observes (Paralipomena, p. 363), the 
omission may have been confined at first to simpler phrases, τὴν 
μέσην ὁδεύειν, μακρὰν πεμφθῆναι, in which the word omitted was readily 


NOTES, BOOK ΡΠ. 431 


supplied, and in later Greek, the usage, having become familiar, 43. 5. 
was more widely applied, without any thought of the word supposed 
to be understood. ‘ Quis enim, si legerit an’ εὐθείας φιλοσοφεῖν, Plut. 
Symp. i. 4. 8; τὴν εὐθεῖαν συνειπεῖν τινι, Vit. Cic. vii; ἐξ ὀρθῆς dvaxpi- 
νειν, Polyb. xv. 27; τὴν ἄλλως ἀδολεσχεῖν, v. Bergler ad Alciphr. i. 
Ep. 19, his igitur et similibus locis quis aut μοῖρα aut τύχη aut 
πρᾶξις aut ὁδός aptum esse credat?’ Language, like childhood, is 
imitative and superficial ; and often by a natural instinct catches 
up and reproduces a form of expression without regard to its exact 


meaning. In the use of a word or phrase, its origin is forgotten. 


οἵ τε ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐζήτουν re σφᾶς αὐτούς, καὶ πᾶν τὸ ἐναντίον, καὶ εἰ 44. 4. 
φίλιον εἴη τῶν ἤδη πάλιν φευγόντων, πολέμιον ἐνόμιζον. 

1) ‘Even though they were friends, belonging to those who were 
already in flight,’ or 2) ‘being some of those who were already 
in flight.’ εἴη is to be construed both with φίλιον and with τῶν 
φευγόντων : τῶν... φευγόντων being a further description of atov. 
The gen. is either 1) possessive, or 2) partitive. 


ὥστ᾽, εἰ μὲν ἐντύχοιέν τισι κρείσσους ὄντες τῶν πολεμίων, διέφευγον 44. 5, 
αὐτοὺς ἅτε ἐκείνων ἐπιστάμενοι τὸ ξύνθημα, εἰ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ μὴ ὑποκρίνοιντο, 
διεφθείροντο. 

ἐντύχοιεν, scil. the Athenians ; διέφευγον, scil. the Syracusans. 


καὶ διωκόμενοι κατά τε τῶν κρημνῶν οἱ πολλοὶ ῥίπτοντες ἑαντοὺς ἀπώλ- 44, 8. 
λυντο, στενῆς οὔσης τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Επιπολῶν πάλιν καταβάσεως. 

οἱ πολλοίΞ:Ξ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀπολλυμένων. If the greater part of the 
army engaged in the attempt had been intended, some stronger 
expression than ἀπέθανον οὐκ ὀλίγοι would have been used in 
45. 2. 


᾿ ὅπως ὑπαγάγοιτο τὴν πόλιν. 46. 
‘ That he might manage (ὑπο-) to draw over the city to their side.’ 
The want of an instance in which a rare word takes a sense 
etymologically suited to it, but not elsewhere found, is no reason 
for changing the reading against all the MSS. into the more com- 
monplace ἐπαγάγοιτος Cp. the use of ὑποκρίνεσθαι for’ ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 


88. 5. 


94. 6. 


84. 7. 


96. 


Ι. 


424 ' THUCYDIDES. 


ξυμπέμπειν τριακοσίους καὶ τριήρεις δύο καὶ ἀναλαβόντες ταῦτα παρέπλευσαν 
ἐς Θουρίαν. 

ταῦτα, though harsh, is probably the true reading, and not αὐτάς 
(Vat. and corr. H.) The latter would imply that the three hundred 
javelin-men were placed on board the two triremes, but there would 
not have been sufficient room for them in addition to the rowers. 


οἱ μὲν γὰρ Κορίνθιοι καὶ Πελοποννήσιοι πρὸς τῇ γῇ ναυμαχοῦντες κἂὶ 
διεσώζοντο. 


‘Fighting close to the land, were in consequence saved.’ καί 
emphasizes the connection between πρὸς τῇ yp and διεσώζοντο. 


καὶ νομίσαντες δι᾿ αὐτὸ οὐχ ἡσσᾶσθαι δι’ ὅπερ οὐδ᾽ οἱ ἕτεροι νικᾶν. οἷ Te 
γὰρ Κορίνθιοι ἡγήσαντο κρατεῖν εἰ μὴ [καὶ] πολὺ ἐκρατοῦντο, οἵ τε ᾿Αθηναῖοι 
ἐνόμιζον ἡσσᾶσθαι ὅτι οὐ πολὺ ἐνίκων. 

The Corinthians raised a trophy because, while they acknow- 
ledged the battle to have been drawn (νομίσαντες «.r.A.), they also 
thought that the avoidance of defeat on their part was equivalent 
to a victory. 

δι αὐτό is emphatic, ‘for the very reason for which.’ It refers, not 
to what precedes, but to what follows, and corresponds to δὲ ὅπερ. 
Cp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 14, εἴρηκας, ἔφη, αὐτὸ δι ὅπερ ἔγωγε τὰ ἐμὰ 
ἔργα πλείστου ἄξια νομίζω εἶναι : Dem. in Steph. A. (xlv) 61, δικάσειν 
γὰρ ὀμωμόκατε ὑμεῖς οὐ περὶ ὧν ἂν ὁ φεύγων ἀξιοῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ὧν ἂν 
ἡ δίωξις ἡ. 


οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι ἐν τούτῳ πυνθανόμενοι αὐτῶν τὸν ἐπίπλουν αὖθις ταῖς 
ναυσὶν ἀποπειρᾶσαι ἐβούλοντο καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ παρασκευῇ τοῦ πεζοῦ, ἥνπερ 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτοὺς φθάσαι βουλόμενοι, ξυνέλεγον. 

The Syracusans had two objects in obtaining reinforcements, 
a) that they might have a trial of strength, ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, scil. 
ἀποπειρᾶσαι, δ) that if possible the trial of strength should take place 


4 


before the Athenian reinforcements arrived (πρὶν ἐλθεῖν φθάσαι -π- 
βουλόμενοι), these words being a resumption or explanation in detail & - 
οἵ ἀποπειρᾶσαι ἐβούλοντο. For the latter motive cp. c. 25 fin 
ξυνέλεγον, ‘had been collecting.’ For the imperfect, expressing=== 


duration of time in the abstract, cp. note on v. 50. 3. 


NOTES, BOOK VII, 425 


καὶ rds πρώρας τῶν νεῶν ξυντεμόντες ἐς ἔλασσον στεριφωτέρας ἐποίησαν, 36. 1. 
καὶ τὰς ἐπωτίδας ἐπέθεσαν ταῖς πρώραις παχείας, καὶ ἀντήριδας ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ὑπέτειναν πρὸς τοὺς τοίχους ὡς ἐπὶ δξ πήχεις ἐντός τε καὶ ἔξωθεν ᾧπερ 
τρόπῳ καὶ οἱ Ἑορίνθιοι πρὸς τὰς ἐν τῇ Ναυπάκτῳ ναῦς ἐπισκευασάμενοι 
πρώραθεν ἐναυμάχουν. 

The prows of the vessels were cut down and made broader, 
and the ἐπωτίδες, or ear-caps, shortened. ‘These were thick beams 
which projected obliquely (like horns) on either side of the prow, 
and were supported by stays, ἀντήριδες, altogether twelve cubits in 
length, which ran from the under or inner surface of the ére- 
rides, through the side of the ship, and were made fast inside the 
hull. They appear to have been used to crush in or to rip up the 
sides of an enemy’s prow, when the beaks of the two vessels 
did not actually meet, cp. c. 34 med., ἀντίπρωροι ἐμβαλλόμεναι 
καὶ ἀναῤῥαγεῖσαι ras παρεξειρεσίας ὑπὸ τῶν Κορινθίων νεῶν, én’ αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο παχυτέρας τὰς ἐπωτίδας ἐχουσῶν. For figures of the ἐπωτίδες 
and ἀντήριδες see Graser, De Veterum Re Navali, tab. ii, iii. 
The words of the present passage, ὡς ἐπὶ ἐξ πήχεις ἐντός re καὶ 
ἔξωθεν, might of themselves mean that the ἀντήριδες were six cubits 
or nine feet long altogether ; but the size and proportions of the 
ancient trireme prove that the meaning is ‘six cubits inside, and six 
outside the ship’s side :’ Graser, Philologus, 1871, p. 35, n. 

It is remarkable that this rather obvious device is ascribed, not 
to the Athenians, but to the Corinthians, vi. 34 med., who were 
themselves the first regular naval architects, and the first builders 
of triremes, i. 13 init. 


ἀντίπρωροι γὰρ ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς χρώμενοι ἀναῤῥήξειν τὰ πρώραθεν αὐτοῖς 36, 3. 
στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι, πρὸς κοῖλα καὶ ἀσθενῆ παρέχοντες, τοῖς ἐμβόλοις. 
στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι. .. τοῖς ἐμβόλοις, dative of instrument after 
ἀναῤῥήξειν. παρέχοντες, Scil. τὰ ἔμβολα. With their stout and solid 
beaks, which they would present against the hollow and weak ones 
of the Athenians. The punctuation here adopted brings out the 
construction. The reading of Vat., παίοντες, is obviously a conjecture. 


τῇ τε πρότερον ἀμαθίᾳ τῶν κυβερνητῶν δοκούσῃ εἶναι τὸ ἀντίπρωρον 88. 5. 
ξυγκροῦσαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὶ χρήσασθαι. 


28. 4. 


29. 1. 


29. 3. 


29. 4. 


29. 5. 


30. 


2. 


422 THUCYDIDES. 


Two points strike us as remarkable respecting this impos: 
a) that a five per cent. duty on the commerce in Greek waters 
should have produced more than 1200 talents: 4) the extreme 
difficulty of collecting such a revenue, and the number of officers 
which would be required for it. 


καὶ εἰπόντες dua ἐν τῷ mapdmdy ... καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους, ἣν τι δύνηται, 
ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν βλάψαι. 

ἀπό has a more lively and casual meaning than διά or vx, ‘to 
get anything out of them which he could in the way of damage 
to the enemy.’ 


τῇ πόλει προσέκειτο οὔσῃ οὗ μεγάλῃ. 

It is clear that οὐ must be introduced from the Vatican MS. 
and H. For at the end ofc. 30 it is implied that the town was 
not large, ὡς ἐπὶ μεγέθει. 


τὸ γὰρ γένος τὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν ὁμοῖα τοῖς μάλιστα τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἂν 
θαρσήσῃ, φονικώτατόν ἐστι. 

1)* There may be a confusion of two expressions, ‘are the 
bloodiest of barbarians,’ and ‘ are as bloody as the worst barbarians. 
Or 2) ‘the Thracians, like the worst barbarians, are most bloody 
when they feel themselves secure.’ See note on English text. 


καὶ ξυμφορὰ τῇ πόλει πάσῃ οὐδεμιᾶς ἥσσων μᾶλλον ἑτέρας ἀδόκητός 
τε ἐπέπεσεν αὕτη καὶ δεινή. 

νᾶλλον ἑτέρας iS not connected with οὐδεμιᾶς ἥσσων, but with 
ἀδόκητός τε καὶ δεινή, Thucydides means to say that the massacre 
of the children was a calamity which by its nature inflicted a blow 
upon the whole city, and that it was as great as any on record; 
and lest this last expression should seem exaggerated, he adds, by 
way of explanation, that it was more sudden and more horrible 
than any other. That the words are not a mere general reflection 
on the fate of the city is shown by their connection with the pre- 
ceding description implied in ξυμφορὰ αὕτη, and by the occurrence 
of such a reflection at the end of the next chapter. 


τῶν τε ἐν τοῖς πλοίοις, ὡς ἑώρων τὰ ἐν TH γῇ, ὁρμισάντων ἔξω τοξεύματος 


τὰ πλοῖα, 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 423 


ἔξω τοξεύματος (although the reading of only two MSS., one being 80. 2. 
H.) is clearly to be preferred to the unmeaning ἔξω τοῦ ζεύγματος. 


τῶν δὲ Μυκαλησσίων μέρος τι ἀπαναλώθη. 80. 3. 
μέρος τι, ‘a considerable portion.’ For the strength of the ex- 
pression cp. i. 23 med. καὶ ἡ οὐχ ἥκιστα βλάψασα καὶ μέρος τι φθείρασα 
ἥ λοιμώδης νόσος. 


ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης τότε ἀποπλέων ἐπὶ τῆς Κερκύρας pera τὴν ἐκ τῆς Λακω- 31. 1. 
γικῆς τείχισιν, ὁλκάδα ὁρμοῦσαν ἐν Φειᾷ τῇ λείων ἐν 7 οἱ Κορίνθιοι 
ὁπλῖται ἐς τὴν Σικελίαν ἔμελλον περαιοῦσθαι, αὐτὴν μὲν διαφθείρει x.r.d. 

ol Κορίνθιοι ὁπλῖται, i.e. ‘some of the Corinthian hoplites.’ The 
article is inserted because the Corinthian hoplites as a body have 
been already mentioned (c. 17, 19), but that in this passage the 
whole body is not intended is sufficiently clear from the context, 
for they were not all on board a single ship. 


ἀγγέλλων ὅτι al πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι νῆες τῶν Κορινθίων αἱ σφίσιν ἀνθορ- 31. 4. 
μοῦσαι οὔτε καταλύουσι τὸν πόλεμον, ναυμαχεῖν τε μέλλουσι. 

καταλύειν τὸν πόλεμον is Said like καταλύειν τὸν βίον, τὴν φυλακήν, 
“do not abate their hostile attitude.’ The phrase is generally used 
of a formal peace, but this is accidental. The meaning of the 
word in itself is the same, though the association gathered from 
the context may be different. 

ναυμαχεῖν re μέλλουσι, ‘but mean to fight,’ or take the offensive ; 
not a mere repetition of the previous words. 


ὅπως μὴ διαφήσουσι τοὺς πολεμίους. 32. 1. 

διαφήσουσι has been unnecessarily corrected by Dobree into 
διαφρήσουσιν, supported by Aristoph. Birds 193,— 

τῶν μηρίων τὴν κνῖσαν ov διαφρήσετε. 

But a parallel passage or a more lively expression are not suffi- 
cient reasons for changing the reading of the MSS. And it is not 
certain that διαφρήσουσι would apply to ‘letting through by negii- 
gence’ equally with διαφήσουσιν. 


καὶ τοὺς Μεταποντίους πείσαντες κατὰ τὸ ξυμμαχικὸν ἀκοντιστάς re 33. 5. 


84. 6. 


84. 7. 


96. 


Ι. 


424 ' THUCYDIDES. 


. ξυμπέμπειν τριακοσίους καὶ τριήρεις δύο καὶ ἀναλαβόντες ταῦτα παρέπλευσαν 


ἐς Θουρίαν. 

ταῦτα, though harsh, is probably the true reading, and not αὐτές 
(Vat. and corr. H.) The latter would imply that the three hundred 
javelin-men were placed on board the two triremes, but there would 
not have been sufficient room for them in addition to the rowers. 


of μὲν γὰρ Κορίνθιοι καὶ Πελοποννήσιοι πρὸς τῇ γῇ ναυμαχοῦντες κἂὶ 
διεσώζοντο. 

‘Fighting close to the land, were in consequence saved.’ καί 
emphasizes the connection between πρὸς τῇ γῇ and διεσώζοντο. 


καὶ νομίσαντες Sv αὐτὸ οὐχ ἡσσᾶσθαι Sy ὅπερ οὐδ᾽ οἱ ἕτεροι νικᾶν. οἷ τε 
γὰρ Κορίνθιοι ἡγήσαντο κρατεῖν εἰ μὴ [καὶ] πολὺ ἐκρατοῦντο, of τε ᾿Αθηναῖοι 
ἐνόμιζον ἡσσᾶσθαι ὅτι οὐ πολὺ ἐνίκων. 

The Corinthians raised a trophy because, while they acknow- 
ledged the battle to have been drawn (νομίσαντες «.r.X.), they also 
thought that the avoidance of defeat on their part was equivalent 
to a victory. 

δι’ αὐτό is emphatic, ‘ for the very reason for which.’ It refers, not 
to what precedes, but to what follows, and corresponds to δὲ ὅπερ. 
Cp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 14, εἴρηκας, ἔφη, αὐτὸ δι’ ὅπερ ἔγωγε τὰ ἐμὰ 
ἔργα πλείστου ἄξια νομίζω εἶναι : Dem. in Steph. A. (xlv) 61, δικάσειν 
γὰρ ὀμωμόκατε ὑμεῖς οὐ περὶ ὧν ἂν ὁ φεύγων ἀξιοῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ὧν ἂν 
ἡ δίωξις ἢ. 


οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι ἐν τούτῳ πυνθανόμενοι αὐτῶν τὸν ἐπίπλουν αὖθις ταῖς 
ναυσὶν ἀποπειρᾶσαι ἐβούλοντο καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ παρασκευῇ τοῦ πεζοῦ, ἥνπερ 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν αὐτοὺς φθάσαι βουλόμενοι, ξυνέλεγον. 

The Syracusans had two objects in obtaining reinforcements, 
a) that they might have a trial of strength, ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, scil. 
ἀποπειρᾶσαι͵ δ) that if possible the trial of strength should take place 
before the Athenian reinforcements arrived (πρὶν ἐλθεῖν φθάσαι 
βουλόμενοι), these words being a resumption or explanation in detail 
of ἀποπειρᾶσαι ἐβούλοντο. For the latter motive cp. c. 25 fin. 
ξυνέλεγον, ‘had been collecting.’ For the imperfect, expressing 
duration of time in the abstract, cp. note on v. 50. 3. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 425 


καὶ τὰς πρώρας τῶν νεῶν ξυντεμόντες ἐς ἔλασσον στεριφωτέρας ἐποίησαν, 36. 1. 
καὶ τὰς ἐπωτίδας ἐπέθεσαν ταῖς πρώραις παχείας, καὶ ἀντήριδας ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ὑπέτειναν πρὸς τοὺς τοίχους ὡς ἐπὶ & πήχεις ἐντός τε καὶ {wer ᾧπερ 
τρόπῳ καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι πρὸς τὰς ἐν τῇ Ναυπάκτῳ ναῦς ἐπισκευασάμενοι 
πρώραθεν ἐναυμάχουν. 

The prows of the vessels were cut down and made broader, 
and the érewrides, or ear-caps, shortened. These were thick beams 
which projected obliquely (like horns) on either side of the prow, 
and were supported by stays, ἀντήριδες, altogether twelve cubits in 
length, which ran from the under or inner surface of the ére- 
rides, through the side of the ship, and were made fast inside the 
hull. They appear to have been used to crush in or to rip up the 
sides of an enemy’s prow, when the beaks of the two vessels 
did not actually meet, cp. c. 34 med., ἀντίπρωροι ἐμβαλλόμεναι 
καὶ ἀναῤῥαγεῖσαι τὰς παρεξειρεσίας ὑπὸ τῶν Κορινθίων νεῶν, en’ αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο παχυτέρας τὰς ἐπωτίδας ἐχουσῶν. For figures of the ἐπωτίδες 
and ἀντήριδες see Graser, De Veterum Re Navali, tab. ii, iii. 
The words of the present passage, ὡς ἐπὶ ἐξ πήχεις ἐντός τε καὶ 
ἔξωθεν, might of themselves mean that the ἀντήριδες were six cubits 
or nine feet long altogether; but the size and proportions of the 
ancient trireme prove that the meaning is ‘six cubits inside, and six 
outside the ship’s side :’ Graser, Philologus, 1871, p. 35, ἢ. 

It is remarkable that this rather obvious device is ascribed, not 
to the Athenians, but to the Corinthians, vi. 34 med., who were 
themselves the first regular naval architects, and the first builders 
of triremes, i. 13 init. 


ἀντίπρωροι yap ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς χρώμενοι avappntew τὰ πρώραθεν αὐτοῖς 36, 3. 
στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι, πρὸς κοῖλα καὶ ἀσθενῆ παρέχοντες, τοῖς ἐμβόλοις. 
στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι.. .. τοῖς ἐμβόλοις, dative of instrument after 
ἀναῤῥήξειν, παρέχοντες, 501}. τὰ ἔμβολα. With their stout and solid 
beaks, which they would present against the hollow and weak ones 
of the Athenians. The punctuation here adopted brings out the 
construction. The reading of Vat., παίοντες, is obviously a conjecture. 


τῇ τε πρότερον ἀμαθίᾳ τῶν κυβερνητῶν δοκούσῃ εἶναι τὸ ἀντίπρωρον 86, κ΄. 
ξυγκροῦσαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὶ χρήσασθαι. 


86. 5. 


96. 6. 


86. 6. 


97. 


97. 


2. 


426 THUCYDIDES. 


ξυγκρούσει, the reading of the majority of the MSS., has been 
rightly altered into ξυγκροῦσαι. 
For the so called ‘accusative of reference’ cp. note on ii. 87. 1. 


προσπίπτοντας ἀλλήλοις ταράξεσθαι, ὅπερ καὶ ἔβλαπτε μάλιστα τοὺς 
᾿Αθηναίους. 
καί, ‘which actually proved most detrimental to the Athenians.’ 


περιπλεῦσαι δὲ ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, σφῶν ἐχόντων Thy ἐπίπλευσιν ἀπὸ 
τοῦ πελάγους τε καὶ ἀνάκρουσιν, οὐ δυνήσεσθαι αὐτούς, ἄλλως τε καὶ 
τοῦ Πλημμυρίου πολεμίου τε αὐτοῖς ἐσομένου καὶ τοῦ στόματος οὐ μεγάλον 
ὄντος τοῦ λιμένος. 

Thucydides has explained in the earlier part of the chapter that 
the Syracusans would not hesitate to charge beak to beak, because 
they would be exposed to no danger from the ordinary manceuvres 
of the enemy (διέκπλους, περίπλους, and ἀνάκρουσιε). For the Syra- 
cusans themselves would take care to prevent the διέκπλους ; the 
περίπλους could not be executed in a confined space: and the 
Athenians could only back (dvaxpovew) into the small part of the 
harbour which was occupied by their own encampment. He 
now adds that they could not take advantage of the open sea in 
order to sail round the Syracusan ships before striking (mepimdovus), 
because the mouth of the harbour was in the hands of their 
enemies. 

ἀνάκρουσις, from the simple meaning of backing water, has 
acquired the technical meaning of backing with a view to striking. 
ἐπίπλευσιν, ἀνάκρουσιν, which are included under the same article, 
seem to be two parts of the same movement. The Syracusans, 
having command of the entrance to the harbour, could charge the 
enemy’s vessel from the open sea, and retire in order to make the 
charge. 


τοιαῦτα of Συρακόσιοι πρὸς THY ἑαυτῶν ἐπιστήμην τε Kat δύναμιν ἐπινοή- 
σαντες κιτὰλ. 

I.e. having adapted their ships to a direct attack rather than to 
the manceuvres in which the Athenians excelled. 


καὶ τὸν μὲν πεζὸν ὀλίγῳ πρότερον τὸν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Γύλιππος προεξ- 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 427 


ἀγαγὼν προσῆγε τῷ τείχει τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, καθ᾽ ὅσον πρὸς τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ 87. 2. 
ἑώρα. 

καθ᾽ ὅσον x.r.A, means the side of the wall facing Syracuse. The 
iriner side of the wall would probably be attacked by Gylippus 
either on the heights (if the Athenians still retained their lines 
there) or lower down, or both, and the other side by the troops from 
the Olympieum, on the lower ground near the marsh. αὐτοῦ, scil. 
τοῦ τείχους, to be joined with καθ᾽ ὅσον. 


οὐδέτεροι δυνάμενοι ἄξιόν τι λόγου παραλαβεῖν, εἰ μὴ ναῦν μίαν ἣ δύο 88. 1. 
τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων οἷ Συρακόσιοι καταδύσαντες, διεκρίθησαν. 

παραλαβεῖν, 501]. ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων. 

καταδύσαντες is dependent on ἄξιόν τι παρέλαβον understood, ‘ ex- 
cept in so far as the Syracusans gained an advantage by sinking 
one or two ships of the Athenians.’ 


διαλειπούσας δὲ τὰς ὁλκάδας ὅσον δύο πλέθρα dm’ ἀλλήλων κατέ- 38. 3. 
στησεν. 

The merchant vessels were anchored at the entrance of the 
palisade or temporary Athenian dock, leaving an interval of about 
200 feet. There were probably several such vessels, and several 
entrances. It is not easy to understand how an interval of about 
200 feet can have been commanded by the dolphins. But may we 
not suppose that, although this was the space between the merchant 
vessels which were drawn up in front of the palisade, nevertheless the 
passage was narrowed by a portion of the palisade itself, which left 
on either side only sufficient room for a trireme to pass where the 
dolphins were placed? ‘This explanation agrees fairly with the text, 
though not perfectly suitable to the words διὰ τῶν ὁλκάδων in c. 41. 
The descriptions of Thucydides are graphic, but not always clear, 
sometimes owing to the omission of some small point which he 
does not perceive to be necessary for the comprehension of the 
whole description. The dolphin (cp. c. 41) was suddenly let down 
from a crane placed on their decks upon a ship passing near, and 
struck with such effect on the light frame of the trireme as to 
sink it. The manner of its action is well explained by two 
verses which the Scholiast on Aristophanes, Knights, 761, cites 


428 THUCYDIDES. 


88. 3. out of Pherecrates; the lines as emended by Meineke are as 


40. 4. 


40. 5. 


follows :— 
ὁ δὲ δὴ δελφίς ἐστι μολιβδοῦς δελφινοφόρος re κεροῦχος 
ὃς διακόψει τοὔδαφος αὐτῶν ἐμπίπτων καὶ καταδύων. 
Compare also the more lively language of Aristophanes himself, 
Lej— 
ἀλλὰ φυλάττου, καὶ πρὶν ἐκεῖνον προσικέσθαι σου, πρότερον σὺ 
τοὺς δελφῖνας μετεωρίζου καὶ τὴν ἄκατον 1 ἄλλου. 
Graser (§ 82) thinks that the dolphin was attached to the crane 
from which it was let down in such a manner that it could be 
drawn up after sinking an enemy’s ship and used again. 


ἔπειτα οὐκ ἐδόκει τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν διαμέλλοντας κόπῳ 
ἁλίσκεσθαι. 

ἁλίσκεσθαιτε “ἴο be overcome’ (by sleep, toil, deceit) with an asso- 
ciation of suddenness or unconsciousness. 

ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν may go either with διαμέλλοντας, ‘ through a delay 
which was their own fault’ (cp. vi. 37 fin. οὐκ ἐπὶ πολὺ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων 
ἱππέων ἐξιόντες), Or with ἁλίσκεσθαι, or with both. 


πολὺ δ᾽ ἔτι μείζω of ἐν τοῖς λεπτοῖς πλοίοις περιπλέοντες τῶν Συρα- 
κοσίων καὶ ἔς τε τοὺς ταρσοὺς ὑποπίπτοντες τῶν πολεμίων νεῶν καὶ ἐς τὰ 
πλάγια παραπλέοντες καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐς τοὺς ναύτας ἀκοντίζοντες. 

ταρσούς, either 1)* the blades of the oars, or 2) the whole broad- 
side; cp. Polyb. xvi. 3. 12, αὐτὸς μὲν ἥμαρτε τοῦ τρῶσαι, παραπεσὼν δὲ 
τοῖς πολεμίοις ἀπέβαλε τὸν δεξιὸν ταρσὸν τῆς νεώς. ἐξ αὐτῶν, 5.1]. ἐκ τῶν 


πλοίων. 


καὶ τοῖς μὲν Συρακοσίοις καὶ ξυμμάχοις κατάπληξις ἐν τῷ αὐτίκα οὐκ ὀλίγη 
ἐγένετο͵ εἰ πέρας μηδὲν ἔσται σφίσι τοῦ ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοῦ κινδύνου, ὁρῶντες 
οὔτε διὰ τὴν Δεκέλειαν τειχιζομένην οὐδὲν ἧσσον στρατὸν ἴσον καὶ παραπλή- 
σιον τῷ προτέρῳ ἐπεληλυθότα, THY τε τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων δύναμιν πανταχόσε 
πολλὴν φαινομένην. 

τοῦ ἀπαλλαγῆναι, explanatory gen., ‘no end in the way of deliver- 
ance from.’ Cp. Dem. in Boeot. (xl.) 49, ri yap ἂν ἦν πέρας ἡμῖν τοῦ 
διαλυθῆναι ; 

οὔτε... οὐδὲν ἧσσον, ‘not on that account a whit the 1655. οὔτε, 
resumed by οὐδέν, answers to τέ which follows. 


NOTES, BOOK VII, 429 


νομίσας οὐχ οἷόν τε εἶναι διατρίβειν, οὐδὲ παθεῖν ὅπερ ὁ Νικίας 42. 3. 
ἔπαθεν x.t.X. 


παθεῖνΞ- δεῖν παθεῖν. 


καὶ ὁρῶν τὸ παρατείχισμα τῶν Συρακοσίων, ᾧ ἐκώλυσαν περιτειχίσαι 42. 4. 
σφᾶς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους, ἁπλοῦν τε ὃν καί, εἰ ἐπικρατήσειέ τις τῶν ᾿Επιπολῶν 
τῆς ἀναβάσεως καὶ αὖθις τοῦ ἐν αὐταῖς στρατοπέδου, ῥᾳδίως ἂν αὐτὸ ληφθέν, 
(οὐδὲ γὰρ ὑπομεῖναι ἂν σφᾶς οὐδένα,) ἠπείγετο ἐπιθέσθαι τῇ πείρᾳ. 

The object of the night attack on Epipolae was to capture by 
a surprise, and from the further end, the Syracusan cross-wall 
which Demosthenes had failed to take by an open assault in front. 
The details are obscure, owing to our ignorance of the point at 
which the cross-wall terminated. That it did not, as Mr. Grote 
supposes, extend to the fort which the Syracusans had erected on 
or near the Euryelus has been sufficiently shown in the note on 
vii. 7. 1. Whether it reached the northern cliff of Epipolae at a 
nearer point we are not informed (see the same note, ad fin.) 
If it did, the Athenian army must still have taken it in front, and 
would.have had only the advantage of a surprise. If it did not, 
their object must have been to get round it and attack it from 
behind, or from both sides. This supposition harmonizes better 
a) with the assumption which Demosthenes seems to make, that 
the capture of the τείχισμα would involve the capture of the cross- 
wall, c. 42 fin. οὐδὲ yap ἂν ὑπομεῖναι σφᾶς οὐδένα, δ) with the cursory 
manner in which Thucydides mentions the capture of the cross- 
wall, as if it were a task of no difficulty, 43. 5, ἄλλοι δέ «72a c) with 
the forward movement of the Athenians described in the words 
immediately preceding, καὶ αὐτοί μεν x.r.s4. The movement must have 
taken place on the northern side of the Syracusan counter-wall to 
be of any importance ; and yet, as the narrative shows, it must have 
commenced before the cross-wall was actually taken. How could 
this have been, if the wall ran as far as the northern cliff ? 

The above argument supposes the Euyrelus to have been Bel- 
vedere, the knoll at the summit of Epipolae. But, if with Holm, 
we assume the Euryelus to have been Mongibellisi, nearer the city, 
the Syracusan cross-wall may have reached the northern cliff beyond 
it. So that the Athenians, when they ascended by the Euryelus, 
would be within the cross-wall. 


430 THUCYDIDES. 


483. 2. τοὺς λιθολόγους καὶ τέκτονας πάντας λαβὼν καὶ ἄλλην παρασκευὴν τοξευ- 
μάτων τε καὶ ὅσα ἔδει, ἣν κρατῶσι, τειχίζοντας ἔχειν. 
The place of τοξεύματα between carpenters and siege implements 
affords no reason for doubting the reading. Archers were more 
needed in a siege than in a battle. 


43.4. οἱ δὲ πλείους διαφυγόντες εὐθὺς πρὸς τὰ στρατόπεδα, ἃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν 
᾿ΕἘπιπολῶν τρία [ἂν προτειχίσμασινἾ «.7.A. 

The reading ἐν προτειχίσμασιν after τρία, which would mean ‘ in 
the midst of outworks,’ whether those of the city or those of the 
three camps themselves, although read by Vat. and H., has too 
little MS. authority to support it, and is probably a gloss taken 
from ἐκ τῶν προτειχισμάτων in ὃ 6 infra. The camps were probably 
behind the counter-wall. 


43.5. καὶ αὐτοὶ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐχώρουν és τὸ πρόσθεν, ὅπως τῇ παρούσῃ ὁρμῇ τοῦ 
περαίνεσθαι ὧν ἕνεκα ἦλθον μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνται’ ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς 
πρώτης παρατείχισμα τῶν Συρακοσίων, οὐχ ὑπομενόντων τῶν φυλάκων, 
ὕρουν τε καὶ τὰς ἐπάλξεις ἀπέσυρον. 

τοῦ περαίνεσθαι, ‘that while the impetus to accomplish their work 
continued in them,’ either 1)* ‘they might make a quick end of it;’ 
or 2) giving a feebler sense to μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνται Ξ-- ὑστερήσωνται, 
‘they might not flag in the execution of it,’ (Schol.). The gen. 
τοῦ περαίνεσθαι is to be taken with μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνται, as well as 
with τῇ παρούσῃ ὁρμῇ. 

τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης παρατείχισμα, 1)* a periphrastic expression for 
‘the first part of the παρατείχισμα :᾿ Cp. ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα, ς. 37 med. 
For τῆς πρώτης Cp. τοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς tons ἐχθροῦ, iii. 40 fin.: ἀπὸ πρώτης, i. 77 
med.: τὴν πρώτην, Herod. i. 153. 6, iii. 184. 8: Dem. Olynth. iii. 2. 
In such cases words like μοίρας, ἐφόδου, or ὁρμῆς, have been some- 
times supplied. But it is better, instead of supplying substantives 
which are never present to the mind, and sometimes interfere with 
the sense, to regard the adverbial use in ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης and the 
like expressions as appropriate to the feminine no less than to the 
neuter. Or as Lobeck observes (Paralipomena, p. 363), the 
omission may have been confined at first to simpler phrases, τὴν 
μέσην ὁδεύειν, μακρὰν πεμφθῆναι, in which the word omitted was readily 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 431 


supplied, and in later Greek, the usage, having become familiar, 48. 5. 
was more widely applied, without any thought of the word supposed 
to be understood. ‘ Quis enim, si legerit an’ εὐθείας φιλοσοφεῖν, Plut. 
Symp. i. 4. 8; τὴν εὐθεῖαν συνειπεῖν τινι, Vit. Cic. vii; ἐξ ὀρθῆς dvaxpi- 
vew, Polyb. xv. 27; τὴν ἄλλως ἀδολεσχεῖν, v. Bergler ad Alciphr. i. 
Ep. 19, his igitur et similibus locis quis aut μοῖρα aut τύχη aut 
πρᾶξις aut ὁδός aptum esse credat?’ Language, like childhood, is 
imitative and superficial ; and often by a natural instinct catches 
up and reproduces a form of expression without regard to its exact 
meaning. In the use of a word or phrase, its origin is forgotten. 
ot τε ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐζήτουν τε σφᾶς αὐτούς, καὶ πᾶν τὸ ἐναντίον, καὶ εἰ 44. 4, 
φίλιον εἴη τῶν ἤδη πάλιν φευγόντων, πολέμιον ἐνόμιζον. 

1) ‘Even though they were friends, belonging to those who were 
already in flight,’ or 2) ‘being some of those who were already 
in flight.’ εὖ) is to be construed both with φίλιον and with τῶν 
φευγόντων : τῶν... φευγόντων being a further description of φᾷιον. 
The gen. is either 1) possessive, or 2) partitive. 


ὥστ᾽, εἰ μὲν ἐντύχοιέν τισι κρείσσους ὄντες τῶν πολεμίων, διέφευγον 44. 5, 
αὐτοὺς ἅτε ἐκείνων ἐπιστάμενοι τὸ ξύνθημα, εἰ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ μὴ ὑποκρίνοιντο, 
διεφθείροντο. 

ἐντύχοιεν, 501}. the Athenians ; διέφευγον, scil. the Syracusans. 


καὶ διωκόμενοι κατά τε τῶν κρημνῶν ot πολλοὶ ῥίπτοντες ἑαντοὺς ἀπώλ- 44, 8. 
λυντο, στενῆς οὔσης τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Επιπολῶν πάλιν καταβάσεως. 

οἱ πολλοίΞ:Ξ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀπολλυμένων. If the greater part of the 
army engaged in the attempt had been intended, some stronger 
expression than ἀπέθανον οὐκ ὀλίγοι would have been used in 
45. 2. 


“Gras ὑπαγάγοιτο τὴν πόλιν. 48. 
‘ That he might manage (ὑπο-) to draw over the city to their side.’ 
The want of an instance in which a rare word takes a sense 
etymologically suited to it, but not elsewhere found, is no reason 
for changing the reading against all the MSS. into the more com- 
monplace énayayoro. Cp. the use of ὑποκρίνεσθαι for’ ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 


432 THUCYDIDES. 


46. inc. 44 med. supra. In iii. 63. 2 however ὑπάγεσθαι, although the 
reading of nearly every MS., cannot be maintained. See note. 


47.2. νόσῳ τε yap ἐπιέζοντο... τά re ἄλλα ὅτι ἀνέλπιστα αὐτοῖς ἐφαίνετο. 
τά τε ἄλλα ὅτι answers to νόσῳ re. ‘For they were distressed, 
both by sickness, and because everything appeared hopeless.’ 


47.3. τῷ οὖν Δημοσθένει οὐκ ἐδόκει ἔτι χρῆναι μένειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἅπερ καὶ διανοηθὲς 
és τὰς ᾿Επιπολὰς διακινδυνεῦσαι, ἐπειδὴ ἔσφαλτο, ἐξιέναι ἐψηφίζετο. 
Again the correction διεκινδύνευσε, found in the Vatican ΜΘ. is 
unnecessary. The construction is ἀλλ᾽ ἐδόκει ἅπερ καὶ ἔφη (under- 
stood from ἐδόκει) διανοηθεὶς διακινδυνεῦσαι. 


48. 2. χρημάτων γὰρ ἀπορίᾳ αὐτοὺς ἐκτρυχώσειν, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἤδη 
ταῖς ὑπαρχούσαις ναυσὶ θαλασσοκρατούντων. 
There is a confusion of the subject and object in these words. 
‘For by reason of their (i.e. the Syracusan) want of money, they 
(i.e. the Athenians) would wear them out. The construction 
also changes at θαλασσοκρατούντων. Cp. iii. 12 fin. βοηθησάντων δὲ 
ὑμῶν προθύμως, πόλιν τε προσλήψεσθε x.7.A. 


48. 4. οὔκουν βούλεσθαι αὐτός γε ἐπιστάμενος τὰς ᾿Αθηναίων φύσεις én’ αἰσχρᾷ 
τε αἰτίᾳ καὶ ἀδίκως ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων ἀπολέσθαι μᾶλλον ἣ ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων, εἰ 
δεῖ, κινδυνεύσας τοῦτο παθεῖν ἰδίᾳ. 

Cp. vi. 9 med. ἧσσον ἑτέρων περὶ τῷ ἐμαυτοῦ σώματι ὀῤῥωδῶ. 

ἰδίᾳ, 1) ‘to suffer death individually,’ a singular expression ; 
for Nicias risked the whole army as well as himself by remaining, 
but only himself by going home. This he appears to forget, or 
rather perhaps Thucydides was led into this piece of false logic, 
or false rhetoric, by the recollection that Nicias did perish apart 
from the rest of the army (vii. 86 fin.) 

Or 2) better ἰδίᾳ may be taken as meaning ‘in his private 
capacity, opposed to δημοσίᾳ, which is implied in én’ αἰσχρᾷ αἰτίᾳ, 
‘on a public charge of corruption.’ That is to say, he would die 
as a private soldier, choosing death on his own account, not as a 
general condemned by his country. Nicias speaks of himself 
individually, because he does not like to speak of the destruction 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 433 


fhis army. For a similarly forced antithesis of κοινῇ and ἰδίᾳ cp. 48. 4. 
. 43. 2 and note, κοινῇ γὰρ τὰ σώματα διδόντες ἰδίᾳ τὸν ἀγήρων ἔπαινον 
ιάμβανον. 

Plutarch (Nic. xxii.), evidently alluding to this passage, quotes a 

ying of Leon of Byzantium, which he favourably contrasts with 

ie words of Nicias, Δεινὸν μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν αὐτόθι προσδοκᾶν ἔφασκεν, 

δὲ συμβαίη, μᾶλλον αἱρεῖσθαι τὸν ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων θάνατον ἣ τὸν ὑπὸ 

by πολιτῶν, οὐχ ὅμοια φρονῶν οἷς ὕστερον ὁ Βυζάντιος Λέων εἶπε πρὸς 

γὺς ἑαυτοῦ πολίτας" “ Βούλομαι᾽ γὰρ ἔφη “ μᾶλλον ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἢ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν 


τοθανεῖν.᾽ 


ἣν τε καὶ ὁτιοῦν ἐκλίπωσι τῆς νῦν παρασκευῆς τῷ μὴ διδόναι τρο- 4g, ε΄, 
nv, φθερεῖσθαι αὐτῶν τὰ πράγματα, ἐπικουρικὰ μᾶλλον ἣ δι’ ἀνάγκης, ὥσπερ 
2 σφέτερα, ὄντα τρίβειν οὖν ἔφη χρῆναι προσκαθημένους, καὶ μὴ χρήμασιν, 6. 
ς πολὺ κρείσσους εἰσί, νικηθέντας ἀπιέναι, 

‘If they break down ever so little in their present means of 
apply, and cannot provide food,’ lit. ‘by not providing food.’ 
‘he genitive παρασκευῆς is partly dependent on ἐκλύτωσι, partly a 
enitive of relation, explained by what follows, τῷ διδόναι τροφήν. 
‘or a similar expansion of a somewhat obscure genitive cp. i. 61 
lit. ἡ ἀγγελία τῶν πόλεων, ὅτι ἀφεστᾶσι. 

For χρήμασιν, ὡς x.r.A. see note on English text. 


ὁ μὲν Νικίας τοσαῦτα λέγων ἰσχυρίζετο, αἰσθόμενος τὰ ἐν ταῖς Zupa- 49, I. 
γύσαις ἀκριβῶς, καὶ τὴν τῶν χρημάτων ἀπορίαν, καὶ ὅτι ἣν αὐτόθι που τὸ 
ουλόμενον τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις γίγνεσθαι τὰ πράγματα, καὶ ἐπικηρυκευύμενον 
ρὸς αὐτὸν ὥστε μὴ ἀπανίστασθαι, καὶ ἅμα ταῖς γοῦν ναυσὶν ἢ πρότερον. 
τρσήσει κρατηθείς. 

πού, indefinite, ‘of the existence somewhere within the walls,’ 
e. the betrayers of the city were not a recognised party, but 
evertheless were to be found within it. Cp. vii. 73 fin., 86 med. 
‘he article in τὸ βουλόμενον refers to the previous mention of this 
arty inc. 48 init. Nothing is known of it, except what we can 
oubtfully infer from the speech of Athenagoras, vi. 36-40; it 
robably consisted of some of the discontented democrats who 
isliked the ascendancy of Hermocrates and the Lacedaemonians. 
‘he ingenious emendation of Linwood, πολύ for πού (omitted in 

VOL. Il Ff 


ae 


ats 


ΜΝ THUCYDIDES. 


τῶν ΝΞ. -nty :ntroduces a difficulty. For it is unlikely that 
Se ..ictemun yarty within the walls could have been ‘ numerous. 
Taerewwe .3 Sependent on the idea of comparison contained in 
μη surndas. The latter words are supposed to mean, ‘ Over- 
wie ce :atuenced by his confidence, in the fleet at any rate, 
τις tum ὡς aad been before.’ But the Greek of θαρσήσει κρα- 
“wes “uy ce Zuisiv doubted. Vat., H., and another MS. insert 
ὡμμῶσ CWC Le ἡ, and read ἐθάρσησε for θαρσήσει. Stahl adopts ébdpaner, 
iti Will Sacer) changes 7 into 7. Classen further inserts καί 
τινι qurq@as ταῖς γοῦν ναυσὶν 9 πρύτερον ἐθάρσησε καὶ κρατηθείξ. 
Nactasy του σα conquered (by land), trusted in his ships, at 
aie ale, as beture.” But these changes do not give a good sense. 
ree νῶν Cues not agree with καὶ xparnéeis, Nicias having been 
witacy cvmquered at sea as well as by land (c. 41). And ‘by land’ 


> νι tot 


ὦ Sa Sec μὴ ἀτάγειν τὴν στρατιὰν ἄνευ ᾿Αθηναίων ψηφίσματος, ἀλλὰ 
νεὐξῆμν aureus, ἔφη χρῆναι ἢ ἐς τὴν Θάψον ἀναστάντας τοῦτο ποιεῖν ἢ ἐξ 
“ὼς, ley τῷ re πεζῷ ἐπὶ πολλὰ τῆς χώρας ἐπιόντες θρέψονταα. 
ὠμεούσεαν τὰ τῶν πυλεμίων, καὶ ἐκείνους βλάψουσι κιτιλ. 

“ha. casea here is to be taken in the sense not of ‘ wearincS 
vat Sus Ss “remaining,’ as just above, c. 48 fin., is evident froma 
Sore τ ruero ποιεῖν, and from the words which follow. 

τῶν vty be used equally with σφᾶς, because, δεῖ being im— 
Casuant, εὐνὴν ts no subject to which the word refers. 


ΔᾺ ὦ wpe og, ἐν ἡ τά τε τῆς ἐμπειρίας χρήσιμα σφῶν ἔσται. 


whos GUM ICL τῆς ἐμπειρίας. 


νον Rpts εἰπεῖν, οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ οἱ ἔφη ἀρέσκειν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτι μένειν» 
Lie eau ra ἤδη καὶ μὴ μέλλειν ἐξανίστασθαι. 

Δ 21 id, ἐξαντασθαι is to be supplied, being governed bp= 
cas see WEN Uso governs μὴ μέλλειν ἐξανίστασθαι. Or καὶ μ - 
wae hay be inserted διὰ μέσου. 


wen sey ace Apacs μελλήσασι διὰ τοῦτο ἡ μονὴ ἐγεγένητο. of d= 


Seswaccae tut αὐτοὶ τοῦτο πι θύμενοι, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐγηγερμένοι ἧσαν μὴ 


NOTES, BOOK VI. 435 


ἀνιέναι τὰ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ὡς καὶ αὐτῶν κατεγνωκότων ἤδη μηκέτι κρεισσό- 1, 1. 
γων εἶναι σφῶν μήτε ταῖς ναυσὶ μήτε τῷ πεζῷ" οὐ γὰρ ἂν τὸν ἔκπλουν 
ἐπιβουλεῦσαι. 

The aor. μελλήσασι expresses the historical fact of the decision, 
the pluperf. ἐγεγένητο, its irrevocable nature. This was the reason 
why the Athenians remained. The fatal step had now been taken. 

roiro, 1)* the Syracusans having now heard of that which Nicias 
had been most desirous to conceal from them, namely, of the in- 
tended departure of the Athenians, and of the adverse omen which 
prevented it. 

ὡς καὶ αὐτῶν κατεγνωκότων κιτιλ. scem to show that τοῦτο refers 
to the resolution of the Athenians to depart, as well as to their 
final determination to remain. 

It is however possible 2) to refer τοῦτο only to their stay, of which 
the mention has immediately preceded ; in this case the clause ὡς 
καὶ αὐτῶν κιτιλ. gives an additional reason for the confidence of the 
Syracusans. ‘The Syracusans, hearing that the Athenians had 
determined to stay, were more eager than ever not to let them go, 
since by their previous resolution to depart they had acknowledged 
their own inferiority.’ 


ἀπολαμβάνουσί τε τῶν ὁπλιτῶν τινὰς καὶ τρεψάμενοι καταδιώκουσιν. δ1. 2. 
τρεψάμενοι, i.e. they put to flight the whole body of the Athenians 
who came out to meet them; not only τῶν ὁπλιτῶν τινάς, cp. the 
words which follow, of ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἵππους ἑβδομήκοντα ἀπολλύουσι. 


ἀπολαμβάνουσι κἀκεῖνον ἐν τῷ κοίλῳ καὶ μυχῷ τοῦ λιμένος. 52. 2. 
Said by Diodorus (see note on vi. 66. 2), who may possibly 
have derived his narrative from Philistus, to be the bay of 
Dascon; probably the μυχὸς τοῦ λιμένος mentioned in c. 4 med., 
which appears also to have been Dascon. 


ὁ δὲ Τύλιππος ὁρῶν τὰς ναῦς τῶν πολεμίων νικωμένας καὶ ἔξω τῶν orav- 63. 1. 
ρωμάτων καὶ τοῦ ἑαυτῶν στρατοπέδου καταφερομένας, βουλόμενος διαφθείρειν 
τοὺς ἐκβαίνοντας καὶ τὰς ναῦς ῥᾷον τοὺς Συρακοσίους ἀφέλκειν τῆς γῆς 
φιλίας οὔσης παρεβοήδει ἐπὶ τὴν χηλήν. 
The causeway or mole ran from the city between the sea and 
the marsh Lysimeleia, up to or beyond the Athenian encampment 
Ff2 


436 THUCYDIDES. 


53. 1. (see Arnold’s note). If Gylippus could get possession of this 
causeway (τῆς γῆς φιλίας οὔσης) the Syracusans would have no difi- 
culty in capturing the stranded vessels. Whether the engagement 
took place between the city and the Athenian camp, or on the 
other side of the Athenian camp, is uncertain. The former is the 
more probable, for Gylippus is more likely to have come from the 
city than from the Olympicum. 

The exact position of the Athenian camp is nowhere precisely 
indicated by Thucydides. But a) it was somewhere between the 
river Anapus, which the Athenians crossed on their final retreat 
(c. 78 init.), and the wall of Syracuse. 4) It must have ended in 
the double Athenian wall which ran up to Epipolae (c. 60 init.), and 
must have come down to the harbour. c¢) The distance from the 
city wall to the mouth of the Anapus would be about a mile. The 
distance from the southern cliff of Epipolae to the harbour varies 
from less than half a mile to rather more than a mile. Within the 
space thus roughly described, a great part of which was taken up 
by the marsh Lysimeleia, would have to be placed a camp large 
enough to afford room for forty or fifty thousand men. The position 
occupied, though described as ἑλῶδες (c. 47 med.), must have been 
slightly raised above the general level of the marsh. 


55. 2, πόλεσι yap ravrace μόναις ἤδη ὁμοιοτρόποις ἐπελθόντες, δημοκρατουμέναις 
τε ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτοὶ, καὶ ναῦς καὶ ἵππους καὶ μεγέθη ἐχούσαις, οὐ δυνάμενοι 
ἐπενεγκεῖν οὔτε ἐκ πολιτείας τι μεταβολῆς τὸ διάφορον αὐτοῖς ᾧ προσή- 
γοντο ἄν, οὔτ᾽ ἐκ παρασκενῆς πολλῷ κρείσσους, σφαλλόμενοι δὲ τὰ πλείω, 
τά τε πρὸ αὐτῶν ἠπόρουν καὶ ἐπειδή γε καὶ ταῖς ναυσὶν ἐκρατήθησαν, ὃ οὐκ ἂν 
ᾧοντο, πολλῷ δὴ μᾶλλον ἔτι. . 

ναῦς καὶ ἵππους καὶ μεγέθη ἐχούσαις, ‘large cities having ships and 
cavalry.’ 

ἐκ πολιτείας τι μεταβολῆς, τί may be taken either 1) with the 
substantive, ‘nor by any change’ (lit. change in any respect) ‘in 
their government,’ or 2) with ἐπενεγκεῖν ‘nor to introduce difference 
at all.’ Cp. c. 57 init. od κατὰ δίκην τι μᾶλλον... μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων στάντες. 

πολλῷ κρείσσους, Scil. ὄντες, has been translated, 1) ‘nor yet could. 
they do anything by the actual strength of their armament, 
though they were greatly superior.’ But this sentiment is out of 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 437 


place here, the drift of the passage being to depreciate the power 56. 2. 
of Athens compared with that of Sicily. It is better to suppose 
2)* that the influence of the negative οὔτε extends to πολλῷ κρείσσους 
as well as to ἐκ παρασκενῆς. We may supply with ἐκ παρασκενῆς some 
word signifying ‘overcome,’ νικᾶν or προσάγεσθαι, gathered from the 
words ᾧ προσήγοντο ἄν. Elsewhere Thucydides speaks of the Athe- 
nian army and fleet as being out of proportion to the Syracusan 
power. Cp. vi. 31 fin. στρατιᾶς πρὸς obs ἐπήεσαν ὑπερβολῇ, also ii. 65 
fin. ὁ és Σικελίαν πλοῦς, ὃς οὐ τοσοῦτον γνώμης ἁμάρτημα ἦν πρὸς ods 
ἐπήεσαν κτλ. There is, however, no real disagreement between 
these places, for 2) he does not deny that the Athenians were 
superior to the Sicilians, but only that they were much superior 
(πολλῷ κρείσσους) ; 5) the comparison in this passage is not of the 
armaments of the two countries, but of their ultimate resources. 


καὶ αὐτοὶ δόξαντες αὐτῶν αἴτιοι εἶναι ὑπό τε τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων καὶ 5B. 2. 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἔπειτα πολὺ θαιμασθήσεσθαι. καὶ ἦν δὲ ἄξιος ὁ ἀγὼν κατά τε 3. 
ταῦτα καὶ ὅτι οὐχὶ ᾿Αθηναίων μόνον περιεγίγνοντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων 
πολλῶν ξυμμάχων. 

It is not quite clear at what point the sentiments attributed to 
the Syracusans pass into the reflections of the historian. The con- 
struction changes at the words καὶ ἦν δὲ ἄξιος ὁ ἀγών, and the phrase 
καὶ... δέ would naturally introduce a statement of fact: but the 
rhetorical colour of the previous passage is continued in what 
follows. In the sentence ἔθνη γάρ κιτιλ., with which the chapter 
concludes, the transition is completed. 


τοῦ ναυτικοῦ μέγα μέρος προκόψαντες. 56. 3. 
Not ‘having facilitated the success of the (confederate) navy’ 
(Arn.), but ‘having made a great step forward in naval affairs.’ 
μέγα μέρος, not acc. after προκόψαντες, but adverbial, ‘in great 
degree or measure.’ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ, gen. after προκόψαντες, as in iv. 
60. 2 (see note), τῆς ἀρχῆς ἅμα προκοπτόντων ἐκείνοις. 


πλήν ye δὴ τοῦ ξύμπαντος λόγου τοῦ ἐν τῷδε τῷ πολέμῳ πρὸς τὴν BB. 4. 
᾿Αθηναίων τε πόλιν καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων. 
πλήν ye κτλ. Except the entire sum or number of troops which 


438 THUCYDIDES. 


56. 4. came together to fight on behalf of Athens and Sparta. τοῦ fupsa- 


57. 4. 


57. 5. 


ros λόγου, subjective for objective, ‘the whole reckoning’ put for 
‘the whole number.’ The expression which occurs in c. 75 med., 
μυριάδες τοῦ ξύμπαντος ὄχλον οὐκ ἐλάσσους τεσσάρων, has led Classen, 
following Krtiger, to read ὄχλου for λόγου in this passage. But a) 
the use of λόγος is not unidiomatic; δ) the word ὄχλος is more ap- 
propriate in c. 75 med., where Thucydides is describing a mixed 
multitude, than here. 


καὶ τῶν μὲν ὑπηκόων καὶ φόρου ὑποτελῶν Ἐρετριῆς καὶ Χαλκιδῆς καὶ 
Στυρῆς καὶ Καρύστιοι ἀπ᾽ Ἐὐβοίας ἦσαν, ἀπὸ δὲ νήσων Κεῖοι καὶ “Ανδριοι καὶ 
Τήνιοι, ἐκ δ᾽ ᾿Ιωνίας Μιλήσιοι καὶ Σάμιοι καὶ Χῖοι, τούτων Χῖοι οὐχ ὑκο- 
τελεῖς ὄντες φόρον, ναῦς δὲ παρέχοντες, αὐτόνομοι ξυνέσποντο᾽ καὶ τὸ 
πλεῖστον Ἴωνες ὄντες οὗτοι πάντες καὶ ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων πλὴν Καρυστίων 
(οὗτοι δ᾽ εἰσὶ Δρύοπες), ὑπήκοοι δ᾽ ὄντες καὶ ἀνάγκῃ ὅμως “leaves γε ἐπὶ 
Δωριέας ἠκολούθουν. πρὸς δ᾽ αὐτοῖς Αἰολῆς, Μηθυμναῖοι μὲν ναυσὶ καὶ οὐ 
φόρῳ ὑπήκοοι, Τενέδιοι δὲ καὶ Αἴνιοι ὑποτελεῖς. 

τούτων Χῖοι κιτιλ. This is a correction of the preceding statement, 
in which the Chians are ranked among the ὑπατελεῖς φόρου. And 
although here declared to be αὐτόνομοι they are again included in 
the ὑπήκοοι below. 

1)* ὅμως may be taken with “lwvés ye, ‘still they were Tonians 
fighting against Dorians.’ But 2) Ἴωνές re, the reading of all the 
MSS. except Vat., gives a sufficient sense. ‘Being subjects and 
uncer compulsion, and lonians fighting against Dorians, they never- 
theless followed.’ ἀνάγκῃ implies unwillingness, hence ὅμως ἠκολούθουν. 

ναυσὶ καὶ οὐ φόρῳ ὑπήκοοι, ‘furnishing ships, but not tributary 
subjects.’ The word ὑπήκοος applies properly to φόρῳ, but impro- 
perly to ναυσί, for the allies who furnished ships were not ὑπήκοοι, 
but αὐτόνομοι. 


οὗτοι δὲ Αἰολῆς Αἰολεῦσι τοῖς κτίσασι Βοιωτοῖς τοῖς pera Συρακοσίων κατ᾽ 
ἀνάγκην ἐμάχοντο, Πλαταιῆς δὲ καταντικρὺ Βοιωτοὶ Βοιωτοῖς μόνοι εἰκότως 
κατὰ τὸ ἔχθος. 

καταντικρύ, they were Boeotians actually fighting against Boeotians, 
and not merely Aeolians against Aeolians ; μόνοι, they and no other 
Bocotians. These were the Plataeans who had escaped from the 


NOTES, BOOK VIT. 439 


siege, and, like Athenian Cleruchs, were either settled at Scioné, or 57. 5. 


possessed lands there, cp. v. 32 init. τοῖς after Βοιωτοῖς was con- 
jectured by Lindau, and has since been found in M. 


οἱ μὲν Λακεδαιμονίων ἄποικοι Ἰζυθήριοι. 

Hence we learn incidentally that Cythera, like Pylos, had not 
been given back to the Lacedaemonians, though the mutual restora- 
tion of all places taken in war was one of the conditions of peace, 
v. 17. 2, and although Cythera is named in the treaty, v. 18. 7. 


57. 6. 


καὶ οἱ Μεσσήνιοι viv καλούμενοι ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ καὶ ἐκ Πύλου τότε ὑπ᾽ δῆ. 8. 


᾿Αθηναίων ἐχομένης ἐς τὸν πόλεμον παρελήφθησαν. 

ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ, the reading of all the MSS. except the Vatican, 
which has ἐκ Ναυπάκτου, has been needlessly altered. The Messe- 
nians resident at Naupactus are faintly opposed to those who were 
only on temporary garrison duty at Pylos. ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ and ἐκ 
Πύλου go with of Μεσσήνιοι, not with παρελήφθησαν. Cp. c. 31 init. 

οἱ Μεσσήνιοι viv καλούμενοι, 1)* ‘those who are now called Messe- 
nians, not Naupactians.’ Naupactus had originally belonged to the 
Ozolian Locrians, and had been taken by the Athenians in 455, 
when they settled the Messenians there (i. 103). As nothing is said 
of the expulsion of the former inhabitants, it is probable that they 
and the Messenians occupied the place in common, and that after 
a time all the inhabitants of Naupactus were called Messenians. 

2) It is doubtful whether νῦν may not be taken in the sense of 
‘to this day,’ though against the general use of the word. Cp. 
ii. 99 med. ἀνέστησαν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς νῦν ’Eopdias καλουμένης ᾿Εορδούς, ὧν 
οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ ἐφθάρησαν, βροχὺ δέ τι αὑτῶν περὶ Φύσκαν κατῴκηται. And 
this rendering certainly gives a better sense: ‘those who are still 
called Messenians, although they no longer dwell in Messenia.’ 


᾿Ιταλιωτῶν δὲ Θούριοι καὶ Μεταπόντιοι ἐν τοιαύταις ἀνάγκαις τότε στασι- 
ὠτικῶν καιρῶν κατειλημμένων ξυνεστράτευον, καὶ Σικελιωτῶν Νάξιοι καὶ 
Καταναῖοι. 

τοιαύταις, Such as compelled them to serve under the Athenians. 

κατειλημμένων may be taken, either 1)* with Θουρίων καὶ Μεταποντίων, 
supplied from Θούριοι καὶ Μεταπόντιοι, Or 2) with ᾿Ιταλιωτῶν, But in 


57. ΤΙ. 


δ. 11. 


δ8. 3. 


δ8. 4. 


6O. 2. 


60. 2.3. 


440 THUCYDIDES. 


the latter case some only of the Italian cities can be included. 
Possibly the ὁμοιοτέλευτον, στασιωτικῶν καιρῶν, may have corrupted 
the termination of the following word (xareAnppévor). 


δύναται δὲ τὸ νεοδαμῶδες ἐλεύθερον ἤδη εἶναι. 

ἔλεύθερον ἤδη εἶναι, ‘to be now free,’ i.e. not simply a freeman, but 8 
freedman. These words are doubted by Dindorf, because a simila 
explanation of the word νεωδαμώδης is found in the Scholia, no}e* 
μώδης, ὁ ἐλεύθερος mapa τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις. But the Scholion is simpE 
a paraphrase of Thucydides’ explanation. And the idiomatic 
of ἤδη is in favour of the genuineness of the clause. The circum 
stance that Thucydides has not explained the word when it oc 
before (v. 34 med., vii. 19 med.), which has been cited on the other-* 
side, is purely accidental. 


καὶ πρὸς ἅπαντας αὖθις, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τοὺς ἄλλους Συρακόσιοι αὐτοὶ πλείω 
ἐπορίσαντο. 

αὖθις, ‘again, introduces a second comparison. 

ὡς εἰπεῖν is a qualification of πρὸς ἅπαντας, ‘the Syracusans may 
be said to have contributed more,’ or, ‘speaking roughly, they 
contributed more, than the rest put together.’ 


τὰ ἐπιτήδεια οὔτε αὐτίκα ἔτι εἶχον, προπέμψαντες yap ἐς Κατάνην ὡς 
ἐκπλευσόμενοι ἀπεῖπον μὴ ἐπάγειν K.T.X. 

The Athenians must have countermanded their provisions before 
the eclipse, when they intended to withdraw. Yet it is surprising 
that, when they were compelled to remain for twenty-seven days, 
this countermand should not have been recalled. It may be con- 
jectured that after the Syracusans began to close the mouth of the 
harbour the introduction of provisions from Catana was no longer 
possible, and that Thucydides has forgotten to mention this ex- 
phinatory circumstance. 


ἐβουλεύσαντο τὰ μὲν τείχη τὰ ἄνω ἐκλιπεῖν... καὶ of μέν, ὡς ἔδοξεν 

3 ”“~ bed . 3 é e ~ 2 ~ 4 
αὐτοῖς ταῦτα, καὶ ἐποίησαν᾽ ἔκ τε γὰρ τῶν ἄνω τειχῶν ὑποκατέβησαν καὶ 
4 “~ 3 , , > ’ 3 ’ 9 ‘ ~ 
Tas vais ἐπλήρωσαν πάσας, ἀναγκάσαντες ἐσβαίνειν ὅστις καὶ ὁπωσοῦν 


4, , ¢ é , 5 ᾽ 4 
ἐδόκει ἡλικίας μετέχων ἐπιτήδειος εἴναι, 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 441 


ἐκ τῶν ἄνω τειχῶν. Had the Athenians retained their lines on 60.2. 3. 
Epipolae until now? or had they quitted them after the completion 
of the Syracusan counter-wall, so that ra ἄνω τείχη in this passage 
means only the part of the lines under Epipolae and furthest from 
the harbour? We hear nothing of the Athenian lines in the account 
of the night attack on Epipolae, vii. 43. 44. And it is not easy 
to understand why the Athenians, if they still occupied their old 
position on Epipolae, did not make some use of it. On the other 
hand, we hear nothing of the Syracusans occupying or dismantling 
the Athenian wall, as they would have done if the Athenians had 
deserted it. Cp. also vii. 11 fin. ἀπαναλωκυίας τῆς φυλακῆς τῶν τειχῶν 
μέρος τι τοῦ ὁπλιτικοῦ: 46, ὡς ἐν ἔλπίδι ὧν καὶ τὰ τείχη τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων 
αἱρήσειν βίᾳ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ ἐν ταῖς ᾿Επιπολαῖς οὕτω ξυνέβη, where no distinc- 
tion is drawn between the part of the lines which the Athenians 
had left and the part which they retained, unless in the words of 
the latter passage a contrast is intended between τὰ τείχη αἱρήσειν 
and τὰ ἐν ταῖς ᾿Ἐπιπολαῖς. The question must be left undecided. 


ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἄλλου πεζοῦ τὰς vais πάσας, ὅσαι ἦσαν καὶ δυναταὶ καὶ 60. 2. 
ἀπλοώτεραι, πάντα τινὰ ἐσβιβάζοντες πληρῶσαι. 

πάντα τινά. “ All sorts of men,’ ‘any one and every one. That 
this expression, however strong it may appear, does not include all 
the πεζοί is clear from c. 69 fin., 71 init., which show that a con- 
siderable portion of the army was left on shore besides those 
who garrisoned the reduced Athenian lines. It is not likely that 
hoplites would serve as sailors; nor could the entire force have 
found room in 110 ships. Cp. also infra c. 64 med., where of ἐν ταῖς 
ναυσὶν ὑμῶν are expressly opposed to the rest of the army. The 
words are also to be modified by ὅστις καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ἐδόκει ἡλικίας 
μετέχων ἐπιτήδειος εἶναι (cited in previous note), with which, taken 
strictly, they are inconsistent. 


καὶ τἄλλα, ὡς οἷόν τ' ἦν ἐξ ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ τοιαύτης διανοίας, ἐπορί- 60. 4. 
σαντο. 

ἀναγκαίου 15 not to be taken with διανοίας. ‘When they were 
driven by necessity, and their plan was such as I have described,’ 
i. 6. of such a desperate nature. 


60. 5. 


6l. 1. 


6l. 1. 


61. 2. 


62. 1. 


442 THUCYDIDES. 


ὁρῶν τοὺς στρατιώτας τῷ Te παρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς πολὺ ταῖς ναυσὶ κρατηθῆναι 
ἀθυμοῦντας καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων σπάνιν ὡς τάχιστα βουλομένους 
διακινδυνεύειν «.7.A. 

The two clauses joined by τέ, καί, here really represent two 
opposite motives which distracted the Athenians :—despair at their 
own defeat, and the necessity of obtaining food. 


ὁ μὲν ἀγὼν ὁ μέλλων ὁμοίως κοινὸς ἅπασιν ἔσται, περί τε σωτηρίας καὶ 
πατρίδος ἑκάστοις οὐχ ἧσσον ἣ τοῖς πολεμίοις. 

The last words are objected to by Classen as inappropriate. 
But, though briefly expressed, they are not without meaning. ‘ We, 
the invaders, have to fight as hard as the enemy who are being 
invaded ; for Athens is in no less danger,—or in much greater 
danger,—than Syracuse.’ 


a e ° ΄ 4 ᾿ » - 
τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν που οἰκείαν πόλιν ἐπιδεῖν. 


‘His own home wherever it may be.’ 


οἱ τοῖς πρώτοις ἀγῶσι σφαλέντες ἔπειτα διὰ παντὸς Thy ἐλπίδα τοῦ φόβου 
ὁμοίαν ταῖς ξυμφοραῖς ἔχουσιν. 

‘Always retain a fearful expectation on a level with their dis- 
asters,’ or ‘which cannot rise above their disasters:’ they always 
expect that their calamities are going to recur. Cp. i. 140 init. 
πρὸς tas ξυμφορὰς καὶ τὰς γνώμας τρεπομένους. 


ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι τε ᾿Αθηναίων πάρεστε, πολλῶν ἤδη πολέμων ἔμπειροι ὄντες, 
καὶ ὅσοι τῶν ξυμμάχων, ξυστρατευόμενοι ἀεί, μνήσθητε τῶν ἐν τοῖς πολέ- 
pets παραλόγων, καὶ τὸ τῆς τύχης Kay μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔλπίσαντες στῆναι, 
καὶ ὡς ἀναμαχούμενοι ἀξίως τοῦδε τοῦ πληάοις, ὅσον αἰτοὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν 
ἐφορᾶτε. παρασκενάύζεσθε. 

ἐλπίσαντες is to be connected with μνήσθητε. καί emphasizes τὸ 
τῆς τίχης ‘Remember the uncertainty of war, hoping that even 
Fortune (i.e. Fortune who has so often favoured the enemy) may 
help us as well as them ἡ (κᾶν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν). 


πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων ἐπὶ τῶν καταστρωμάτων παρασκειτν. 


I.e. the javelin-men on deck. c. 40 ἤη.. not the imyraved con- 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 443 


struction of the prows, which could not have been thus described, 62. 1. 
and is mentioned § 3 infra. 


ἣν τὰ ἐπὶ τούτοις of ἐπιβάται ὑπουργῶσιν. 62. 3. 
‘If the marines do the service which ought to come next.’ 


ἐκείνην τε τὴν ἡδονὴν ἐνθυμεῖσθαι ws ἀξία ἐστὶ διασώσασθαι, ot τέως 63. 3. 
᾿Αθηναῖοι νομιζόμενοι καὶ μὴ ὄντες ὑμῶν τῆς τε φωνῆς τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ 
τῶν τρόπων τῇ μιμήσει ἐθαυμάζεσθε κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ἑλλάδα, καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς 
ἡμετέρας οὐκ ἔλασσον κατὰ τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι, ἔς τε τὸ φοβερὸν τοῖς ὑπηκόοις 
καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀδικεῖσθαι πολὺ πλεῖον μετείχετε. ὥστε κοινωνοὶ μόνοι ἐλευθέρως 
ἡμῖν τῆς ἀρχῆς ὄντες δικαίως [ἂν] αὐτὴν νῦν μὴ καταπροδίδοτε. 

οἵ, SCil. τούτους ὑμῶν οἵ. 

οὐκ ἔλασσον. Nicias means to say that in positive benefits such 
as pay and commercial advantages the μέτοικοι and foreigners in 
the Athenian service were as well off as the Athenians themselves, 
while in freedom from liability to attack, and the awe which they 
inspired in subject states, they were even better off, either because 
they were not so much exposed as Athens herself, or because they 
by themselves would be more helpless than Athens by herself. 
For a similar strain of argument compare Eurip. Medea, 536 
foll.— 

πρῶτον μὲν “Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἀντὶ βαρβάρου χθονὸς 
γαῖαν κατοικεῖς καὶ δίκην ἐπίστασαι 

νόμοις τε χρῆσθαι, μὴ πρὸς ἰσχύος χάριν" 
πάντες δέ σ᾽ ἤσθοντ᾽ οὖσαν “Ἕλληνες σοφὴν 
καὶ δόξαν ἔσχες" εἰ δὲ γῆς ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτοις 
ὅροισιν ᾧκεις, οὐκ ἂν ἦν λόγος σέθεν. 

If ἅν, after δικαίως, with nearly all the MSS., is retained, the 
imperative with μή must be supposed to have taken the place 
of οὐκ ἂν καταπροδίδοιτε. But ἄν here is not really defensible. 

δικαίως with the imperative must mean, ‘as in duty bound.’ Cp. ' 
iv. 62 fin. τιμωρία γὰρ οὐκ εὐτυχεῖ δικαίως, ‘as it ought.’ 


καὶ ἐνθυμεῖσθε καθ' ἑκάστους τε καὶ ξύμπαντες ὅτι ol ἐν ταῖς ναυσὶν B4, 2, 
ὑμῶν νῦν ἐσόμενοι καὶ πεζοὶ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις εἰσὶ καὶ νῆες καὶ ἡ ὑπόλοιπος 


πόλις καὶ τὸ μέγα ὄνομα τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν, περὶ ὧν, εἴ τίς τι ἕτερος ἑτέρου 


444 THUCYDIDES. 


64. 2. προφέρει ἢ ἐπιστήμῃ ἣ εὐψυχίᾳ οὐκ ἂν ἐν ἄλλῳ μᾶλλον καιρῷ ἀποδειξά- 
μένος αὐτός τε αὑτῷ ὠφέλιμος γένοιτο καὶ τοῖς ξύμπασι σωτήριος. 

of ἐν τοῖς ναυσίν κτλ. ‘You who are about to embark are to 
your country, army, fleet, the whole state, and the great name of 
Athens.’ 

ἡ ὑπόλοιπος πόλις, ‘everything else, the rest of the state,’ besides 
πεζοὶ and νῆες. τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν adds an additional emphasis to this 
highly-wrought passage, for the usage of Thucydides ahd the 
common Greek idiom is not to speak of ai’A@jvat, but of of ᾿Αθηναῖοι. 

περὶ ὧν, either 1)* περὶ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν, or 2) all which has preceded, 
armies, ships, the name of Athens, etc. 


65. 2. τὰς yap πρώρας cai τῆς νεὼς ἄνω ἐπὶ πολύ κατεβύρσωσαν. 
τῆς νεώς, Of the ship which the grappling irons were designed to 
attack, the article referring to ἡ ἐπιβολὴ τῶν σιδηρῶν χειρῶν in the 
preceding sentence; cp. c. 62 fin. χειρῶν σιδηρῶν ἐπιβολαί, ait σχήσουσι 


THY πάλιν ἀνάκρουσιν τῆς προσπεσούσης νεώς. 


66. 1. ὅτι μὲν καλὰ τὰ προειργασμένα καὶ ὑπὲρ καλῶν τῶν μελλόντων ὁ ἀγὼν 
ἔσται, ὦ Συρακόσιοι καὶ ξύμμαχοι, οἷ τε πολλοὶ δοκεῖτε ἡμῖν εἰδέναι" 
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν οὕτως αὐτῶν προθύμως ἀντελάβεσθε" καὶ εἴ τις μὴ ἐπὶ ὅσον 
δεῖ ἥσθηται, σημανοῦμεν. 

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄν... αὐτῶν ἀντελάβεσθε κιτιλ., lit. ‘for if not, neither 
would you have engaged in them with so much energy,’ i.e. ‘ for 
otherwise you would not have engaged in them.’ οὐδέ (not ov) 
emphasizes the connection between ἀντελάβεσθε and δοκεῖτε εἰδέναι. 
αὐτῶν refers strictly to τὰ προειργασμένα, less correctly to τῶν μελλόν- 
των, in the sense, not of the coming victory, but of the preparation 
for it. 


66. 3. ἄνδρες yap ἐπειδὰν ᾧ ἀξιοῦσι προὔχειν κολουθῶσι, τό γ᾽ ὑπόλοιπον αὐτῶν 
τῆς δόξης ἀσθενέστερον αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἐστίν, ἢ εἰ μηδ᾽ φήθησαν τὸ πρῶτον, 
καὶ τῷ παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα τοῦ αὐχήματος σφαλλόμενοι καὶ παρὰ ἰσχὺν τῆς 
δυνάμεως ἐνδιδόασιν. 

ἀσθενέστερος the comparative is followed by ἑαυτοῦ, as well as by 
ἢ: ‘what remains of their self-respect is weaker than it ever was, 
and weaker to a greater extent than if they had never belicved that 


NOTES, BOOK VI, 445 


they were superior in this particular thing ;’ cp. Plat. Prot. 350 A, 66. 3. 
καὶ τἄλλά ye πάντα... οἱ ἐπιστήμονες τῶν μὴ ἐπισταμένων θαῤῥαλεώτεροί 
εἶσι, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτῶν, ἐπειδὰν μάθωσιν, ἣ πρὶν μαθεῖν. 

φήθησαν τὸ πρῶτον, 501]. τούτῳ προὔχειν, referring to ᾧ ἀξιοῦσι προῦχειν 
above. 

τοῦ αὐχήματος is to be taken with τῷ παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα, ‘meeting with a 
reverse which disappoints their pride,’ lit. ‘ failing in the unlooked- 
for issue of their boasting.’ 


τά τε τῆς ἀντιμιμήσεως αὐτῶν τῆς παρασκευῆς ἡμῶν τῴ μὲν ἡμετέρῳ 67. 2. 
τρόπῳ ξυνήθη τέ ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἀνάρμοστοι πρὸς ἑκάστην αὐτῶν ἐσόμεθα" 
οἱ δ᾽, ἐπειδὰν πολλοὶ μὲν ὁπλῖται ἐπὶ τῶν καταστρωμάτων παρὰ τὸ καθε- 
στηκὸς ὦσι, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἀκοντισταὶ χερσαῖοι, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ᾿Ακαρνᾶνές τε 
καὶ ἄλλοι, ἐπὶ ναῦς ἀναβάντες, of ovd’ ὅπως καθεζομένους χρὴ τὸ βέλος 
ἀφεῖναι εὑρήσουσι, πῶς οὐ σφαλοῦσί τε τὰς ναῦς, καὶ ἐν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς πάντες, 
οὐκ ἐν τῷ αὑτῶν τρόπῳ κινούμενοι, ταράξονται ; 

Gylippus means to say, ‘As to their imitation of our ways of 
fighting, the employment of them is natural to us, and we are 
prepared to meet them when they are employed against us, but 
the Athenians will find them clumsy and awkward.’ 

πρὸς ἑκάστην, 501]. ἀντιμίμησιν. 

ἀκοντισταὶ χερσαῖοι... . ἀναβάντες, ‘javelin-men, who are, so to speak, 
land-animals, put on shipboard.’ 

καθεζομένους, either 1)* ‘ stationary,’ ‘in their places,’ or 2) literally 
‘ sitting down,’ because they would be unable to stand up on the 
deck of a ship when in motion, and perhaps striking an enemy. 
There is a further uncertainty whether the words mean, a) ‘ who 
will not know, if they have to keep their places,’ or ‘to sit down, 
even how to hurl their missiles ;’ or 4) ‘who will not know even 
how to keep their places,’ or ‘to sit down, when they have to hurl 
their missiles.’ 

κινούμενοι, below, must either 1)* be taken in the sense of 
‘ moving their bodies,’ or 2) be brought under the influence of οὐκ 
as well as ἐν τῷ αὑτῶν τρόπῳ, ‘not moving about as they are ac- 
_ customed to do.’ 


ὑπερβαλλόντων yap αὐτοῖς τῶν κακῶν καὶ βιαζόμενοι ὑπὸ τῆς παρούσης 67. 4. 


67. 4. 


68. I. 


69. 2. 


69. 2. 


446 THUCYDIDES. 


ἀπορίας ἐς ἀπόνοιαν καθεστήκασιν ov παρασκευῆς πίστει μᾶλλον ἣ τύχης 
ἀποκινδυνεύσει οὕτως ὅπως δύνανται, ἵν᾿ ἣ βιασάμενοι ἐκπλεύσωσεν κιτ,λ. 
iv ἥ κιτλ., as well as οὕτως ὅπως δύνανται, depend on the verbal 
idea contained in ἀποκινδυνεύσει. For the sake of the parallelism 
of the sentence, the dative ἀποκινδυνεύσει is used instead of the 


participle ἀποκινδυνεύσοντες. 


καὶ νομίσωμεν Gua μὲν νομιμώτατον εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους, οἵ ἄν, ὡς 
ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ τοῦ προσπεσόντος, δικαιώσωσιν ἀποπλῆσαι τῆς γνώμης τὸ 
θυμούμενον, ἅμα δὲ ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνασθαι ἐγγενησόμενον ἡμῖν, καὶ τὸ λεγό- 
μενόν που ἥδιστον εἶναι. 

πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους is to be taken with νομιμώτατον εἶναι, and is 
resumed in τοῦ προσπεσόντος. 

οἱ ἄν, not with τοὺς ἐναντίους, but ‘their conduct is most lawful 
who claim,’ cp. note on ii. 44. 1, τὸ δ᾽ εὐτυχὲς of ἄν «.7.X. 

ὡς ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ, ‘meaning to be avenged on the aggressor.’ 

καί, which is omitted by a single MS. only, and an inferior one (I), 
either 1) presents another aspect of ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνασθαι, ‘ vengeance 
against our enemies, and that which is so often said to be most 
delightful, will be within our reach,’ or 2) joins ἐγγενησόμενον and 
ἥδιστον εἶναι, ‘and that this’ (scil. ro ἀμύνασθαι), ‘as the well-known 
proverb says, is most delightful.’ 


καὶ νομίσας, ὅπερ πάσχουσιν ἐν τοῖς μεγάλοις ἀγῶσι, πάντα τε ἔργῳ ἔτι 
σφίσιν ἐνδεᾶ εἶναι καὶ λόγῳ αὐτοῖς οὔπω ἱκανὰ εἰρῆσθαι. 

αὐτοῖς 1s used where σφίσι would be more appropriate, in order 
to avoid a repetition of the same word, and refers, not to the 
soldiers of Nicias (Poppo), but to men in general, the subject of 
πάσχουσιν ; OF αὐτοῖς and σφίσιν may both refer to the Athenian 
generals and their men with whom they are identified. For the 
converse case, σφᾶς used for αὐτούς, etc., cp. note on v. 49. 1. 


ἄλλα τε λέγων, doa ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ ἤδη τοῦ καιροῦ ὄντες ἄνθρωποι οὐ πρὸς 
τὸ δοκεῖν τινι ἀρχαιολογεῖν φυλαξάμενοι εἴποιεν ἄν, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων παρα- 
πλήσια ἔς τε γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ θεοὺς πατρῴους προφερόμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ 
τῇ παρούσῃ ἐκπλήξει ὠφέλιμα νομίζοντες ἐπιβοῶνται. 


ἄλλα τε λέγων. τέ connects ἄλλα λέγων with the preceding words. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 447 


ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων προφερόμενα, ‘ pressed into the service on every occa- 69. 2. 
sion τ᾿ or, ‘whatever be the occasion which they are made to serve.’ 
καί before ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων joins παραπλήσια with the idea implicitly 
contained in the words οὐ πρὸς τὸ δοκεῖν... . φυλαξάμενοι, ‘anything 
which men say at such times however common-place’ (lit. ‘ not 
guarding against the reproach of saying what is common-place,’) 
‘and nearly: the same which is brought forward on every occasion.’ 

ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ παρούσῃ goes back to οὐ φυλαξάμενοι in spite of the 
intervening clause καὶ ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων... mpopepdpeva. 

ἐπιβοῶνται grammatically follows ὅσα, and is parallel to εἴποιεν ἄν, 
for which it is substituted, but in sense εἴποιεν ἄν is left out of sight, 
and ὠφέλιμα νομίζοντες is opposed by ἀλλά to φυλαξάμενοι. ‘ Whatever 
men would be likely to say, not fearing the reproach of common- 
place, but loudly urging what they believe to be useful.’ Strictly 
speaking, ἀλλά reverts to οὐ φυλαξάμενοι, and therefore requires ém- 
βοώμενοι. But the desire of parallelism has led to the substitution 
of ἐπιβοῶνται, a stronger and more appropriate expression than 
elrrovev dy, 

καί before ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων has also been translated ‘although,’ but 
according to this explanation the words és re γυναῖκας... προφερό- 
peva seem to drag. | 

The whole sentence would run more simply in the following form, 
ἄλλα τε λέγων, ὅσα ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ ἤδη τοῦ καιροῦ ὄντες ἄνθρωποι, ov πρὸς τὸ 
δοκεῖν τινε ἀρχαιολογεῖν φυλαξάμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ παρούσῃ ἐκπλήξει ὠφέλιμα 
νομίζοντες, ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων παραπλήσια ἔς τε γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ θεοὺς 


πατρῴους προφερόμενα, ἐπιβοῶνται. 


ἄραντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑαυτῶν στρατοπέδου εὐθὺς ἔπλεον πρὸς τὸ ζεῦγμα τοῦ BQ. 4. 
λιμένος καὶ τὸν παραλειφθέντα διέκπλουν. | 
τὸν παραλειφθέντα διέκπλουν, the reading of Dionysius (De Thuc. Jud. 
c. 26), and of a majority of the MSS., is probably correct. In closing 
the harbour the Syracusans would naturally leave a narrow opening 
for their own use. The readings παραληφθέντα and καταληφθέντα, mean- 
ing ‘occupied, give a poor sense and are of inferior MS. authority. 
Poppo reads καταλειφθέντα On the authority of Vat. and some others. 
But παραλειφδέντα may very well have the same meaning. 


κατά τε τὸν ἔκπλουν μέρει αὐτῶν ἐφύλασσον καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄλλον κύκλῳ 70. I. 


-ς 70. 1. 


70. 3. 


70. 4 


70. 5. 


70. 6. 


71, 2. 


448 THUCYDIDES. 


λιμένα, ὅπως πανταχύθεν ἅμα προσπίπτοιεν τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις, καὶ ὁ πεζὸς 
αὐτοῖς ἅμα παραβοηθῇ, ἧπερ καὶ αἱ νῆες κατίσχοιεν. 

παρεβοήθει, the reading preserved in Dionysius (c. 26), is probably 
right. The reading παραβοηθῇ is not absolutely indefensible, for in 
a historical narrative transitions from the optative to the sub- 
junctive, corresponding to those from the aor. to the ‘historical’ 
present, are sometimes found, cp. vi. 96 fin. ἑξακοσίους λογάδας τῶν 
ὁπλιτῶν ἐξέκριναν mpdrepov .. . ὅπως τῶν τε Ἐπιπολῶν εἴησαν φύλακες καί, 
ἣν ἐς ἄλλο τι δέῃ, ταχὺ ξυνεστῶτες παραγίγνωνται, Yet the intro- 
duction of the subjunctive παραβοηθῇ between the two optatives 
προσπίπτοιεν and κατίσχοιεν is very harsh. 


μὴ λείπεσθαι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ καταστρώματος τῆς ἄλλης τέχνης. 
“What had to be done on deck’ by the archers and javelin-men, 
and by the marines. 


ai μὲν ἐμβολαὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὰς ἀνακρούσεις καὶ διέκπλους ὀλίγαι 
ἐγίγνοντο, ai δὲ προσβολαί, ὡς τύχοι ναῦς νηὶ προσπεσοῦσα ἣ διὰ τὸ 
φεύγειν ἣ ἄλλῃ ἐπιπλέουσα, πυκνότεραι ἧσαν. 

ἐμβολή, the regular blow struck by the head of a vessel. προσβολή, 
a collision of any sort made by chance fouling, ὡς τύχοι ναῦς νηΐ 


προσπεσοῦσα. 


καὶ ὅσον μὲν χρόνον προσφέροιτο ναῦς x.7.A. 

The optative here signifies indefiniteness and frequency. ‘And 
whenever in the course of the engagement one ship was bearing 
down upon another, during all that time,’ etc. 


ξυνετύγχανέ τε... τοῖς κυβερνήταις τῶν μὲν φυλακήν, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπιβουλήν, 
μὴ κάθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον, κατὰ πολλὰ δὲ πανταχόθεν, περιεστάναι. 

μὴ καθ᾽ ἐν ἕκαστον. Either 1) ‘not only at one point in each case,’ 
=pr καθ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστοτε, or 2) ‘For the pilots were engaged now in 
guarding against attacks, now in contriving them, not one at a 
time only, but many at once, against enemics on every side.’ μὴ 
καθ᾽ ἐν ἕκαστον κιτιλιΞε μὴ μίαν ἑκάστην ἀλλὰ πολλάς. Lit. ‘not in the 
way of one encounter after another, but of many.’ 


πάντων yap δὴ ἀνακειμένων τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐς τὰς vats, ὅ re φόβος ἦν 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 449 


Wrép τοῦ μέλλοντος οὐδενὶ ἐοικώς, καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀνώμαλον καὶ Thy ἔποψιν τῆς 71. 2. 
ναυμαχίας ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἠναγκάζοντο ἔχειν. δι᾽ ὀλίγον γὰρ οὔσης τῆς θέας, 

καὶ οὐ πάντων ἅμα ἐς τὸ αὐτὸ σκοπούντων, εἰ μέν τινες ἴδοιέν πῃ τοὺς 
σφετέρους ἐπικρατοῦντας κιτὰλ. 

The full construction would be διὰ τὸ ἀνώμαλον τῆς ναυμαχίας 
ἀνώμαλον καὶ τὴν ἔποψιν αὐτῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἠναγκάζοντο ἔχειν. A second 
ἀνώμαλον has either dropped out of the text before καὶ τὴν ἔποψιν, or 
may be supplied from the first. 

δ᾽ ὀλίγον γάρ. γάρ explains how ‘the varying fortunes of the 
fight gave the spectators such various impressions.’ ‘The battle at 
which they were looking was close to them; consequently their 
prospect was limited, and different divisions of the army saw 
different parts of the engagement,—here victory, there defeat. 


ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἀντίπαλόν τι τῆς ναυμαχίας ἀπιδόντες, διὰ τὸ ἀκρίτως 71, 2. 
ξυνεχὲς τῆς ἁμίλλης καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν αὐτοῖς ἴσα τῇ δόξῃ περιδεῶς ξυναπο- 
γεύοντες, ἐν τοῖς χαλεπώτατα διῆγον. 

‘Others again, looking to some part of the sea-fight which hung 
in the balance, and, because of the indecisive continuousness’ (or ‘be- 
cause of the continuous indecisiveness) of the conflict, in extremity 
of fear swaying their very bodies in sympathy (£v»-) at the sight before 
them (ἀπο-, cp. drovevw and ἀπιδόντες just above) according to the 
feeling of the moment, were in the greatest distress of all.’ 


ἄλλα ὅσα ἐν μεγάλῳ κινδύνῳ μέγα στρατόπεδον πολυειδῆ ἀναγκάζοιτο 7]. 4. 


φθέγγεσθαι. 
Cp. note on iii. 84. 1. 


of δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ὑπὸ μεγέθους τῶν παρόντων κακῶν νεκρῶν μὲν πέρι ἢ 72. 2. 
γαυαγίων οὐδὲ ἐπενόουν αἰτῆσαι ἀναίρεσιν, τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς ἐβουλεύοντο εὐθὺς 
ἀναχωρεῖν. ᾿ 

of δ' ᾿Αθηναῖοι, though in form coordinate with οἱ Συρακόσιοι, supra, 
is really the principal apodosis of the sentence beginning γενομένης 
δ᾽ ἰσχυρᾶς. 

αἰτῆσαι ἀναίρεσιν must be referred to νεκρῶν only. The occurrence 
of ναναγίων in the same construction may be explained by the asso- 
ciation of the dead bodies with the wrecks upon which they were 
lying. ‘They never thought about the wrecks, or about asking to 
take up the dead bodies.’ 

VOL. Il. Gg 


72. 4. 


738. 1. 


78. 


2. 


450 THUCYDIDES. 


λέγων ὅτι πλείους ἔτι ai λοιπαί εἰσι νῆες χρήσιμαι σφίσιν ἣ τοῖς 
πολεμίοις. ἦσαν γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ᾿Αθηναίοις περίλοιποι ὡς δξήκοντα, τοῖς δ᾽ 
ἐναντίοις ἐλάσσους ἧ πεντήκοντα. 

The Athenians had at the commencement of the action 110 
ships, and had therefore lost about 50; the Syracusans had about 
76 ships, and had lost more than 25. 

χρήσιμαι is an afterthought, or ‘ dragging predicate,’ Le. a predi- 
cate equivalent to a relative clause=ai ἦσαν χρήσιμαι. Cp. note on 
li. 100. 2. 


ἐσηγεῖται ἔλθὼν τοῖς ἐν τέλει οὖσιν ὡς οὐ χρεὼν ἀποχωρῆσαι τῆς νυκτὸς 
αὐτοὺς περιϊδεῖν, λέγων ταῦτα ἃ καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόκει, ἀλλὰ ἐξελθόντας ἤδη 
πάντας Συρακοσίους καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους τάς τε ὁδοὺς ἀποικοδομῆσαι καὶ τὰ 
στενόπορα τῶν χωρίων προφθάσαντας φυλάσσειν. 

The best MSS., as well as some inferior ones, vary between καὶ ἅ, 
καὶ ἃ καί, and the text d καί. 

1)* καί emphasizes the words αὐτῷ ἐδόκει, ταῦτα referring to dxo- 
χωρῆσαι τῆς νυκτός, which was not only the fact, but had also been 
divined by Hermocrates: ‘he had guessed the truth.’ Cp. ὑπονοήσας 
αὐτῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, δ 1 supra, which anticipates 4 καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόκει. 

Or 2) καί emphasizes αὐτῷ, ‘ which had struck him of himself,’ i.e. 
without information received from others. 

Or 3) καί is, according to the English idiom, out of place, and 
the words may=4 ἁ ἐδόκει αὐτῷ, ταῦτα καὶ λέγων. ‘He said what had 
struck him ;’ cp. note on iv. 62. 4; v. 13. 1. 

ἀλλὰ ἐξελθόντας. ἀλλά follows χρεών understood from οὐ χρεών. 

προφθάσαντας is found in all the MSS. with the exception of the 
Vatican, which has διαλαβόντας, ‘ cutting off,’ a reading equally good 
in point of sense, and adopted by Bekker, but probably an old 
correction. 


καὶ πάντα μᾶλλον ἐλπίζειν ἂν σφῶν πείθεσθαι αὐτούς x.7.A. 
The genitive σφῶν is not used with πείθεσθαι in Attic prose; 
Furip. Iph. in A. 726 is quoted in support of it,— 
πείθεσθαι yap εἴθισμαι σέθεν. 
But it is better to take σφῶν (ΞΞ πρὸς σφῶν) with πάντα, ‘they would 
be more likely to obey in anything that came from them.’ 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 451 


οἱ δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἄγγελμα ἐπέσχον τὴν νύκτα, νομίσαντες οὐκ ἀπάτην εἶναι" 74, τ΄ 
καὶ ἐπειδὴ καὶ ὡς οὐκ εὐθὺς ὥρμησαν, ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν 
ἡμέραν περιμεῖναι. 

καὶ ὥς. Either 1) the reference may be to the preceding words 
ἐπέσχον τὴν νύκτα, ‘and since even after waiting the night they did 
not start immediately,’ or 2)* the phrase may be taken more gene- 
rally : ‘since even in spite of the necessity of the case,’ or ‘anyhow, 
they had not started immediately.’ Cp. note on iii. 33. 2. 


δεινὸν οὖν ἦν οὐ καθ᾽ ἕν μόνον τῶν πραγμάτων, ὅτι rds τε vais ἀπολωλε- 75. 2. 
κότες πάσας ἀνεχώρουν, καὶ ἀντὶ μεγάλης ἐλπίδος καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἡ πόλις 
κινδυνεύοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολείψει τοῦ στρατοπέδου ξυνέβαινε τῇ τε 
ὄψει ἑκάστῳ ἀλγεινὰ καὶ τῇ γνώμῃ αἰσθέσθαι. | 

οὐ naff ἐν μόνον τῶν πραγμάτων, 1)* ‘ the situation was awful, not only 
when looked at under one aspect of their affairs, but under every 
aspect; not only had they lost their whole fleet, ‘and, in contrast 
with their former high hopes, the existence of the city and their 
own lives were at stake; but, now that they were leaving the camp, 
painful circumstances fixed themselves on the eyes and mind of 
every individual.’ Cp. Herod. v. 78, δηλοῖ δὲ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐν μοῦνον ἀλλὰ 
πανταχῇ ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὡς ἔστι χρῆμα σπουδαῖον. 

2) The words have also been taken to mean, ‘ their affairs re- 
garded as one, i.e. collectively, or as a whole. To this general 
view the accompanying painful circumstances are opposed. But 
it is doubtful whether κάθ’ ἔν can have this meaning. 


καὶ ol ζῶντες καταλειπόμενοι τραυματίαι τε καὶ ἀσθενεῖς πολὺ τῶν TeOved- 75. 3. 
τῶν τοῖς ζῶσι λυπηρότεροι ἧσαν καὶ τῶν ἀπολωλότων ἀθλιώτεροι. 

τῶν τεθνεώτων is opposed to οἱ ζῶντες, while ἀπολωλότων is the 
more neutral word, which generalizes the idea of death, and implies 
a slight euphemism, ‘those who were now no more,’ or ‘ who had 
passed away.’ 

τοῖς ζῶσι, if not a gloss, or a corruption, seems to be intended 
to contrast those who were alive and starting on their march with 
those who, although alive, were left to die (of ζῶντες καταλειπόμενοι). 
The expression, though illogical, has a kind of rhetorical force 
and pathos. 

Gg2 


75. 4. 


75. 5. 


75. 6. 


76. 


452 | THUCYDIDES. 


εἴ τῳ δὲ προλείποι ἡ ῥώμη καὶ τὸ σῶμα, οὐκ ἄνευ ὀλίγων ἐπιθειασμῶν 
καὶ οἰμωγῆς ἀπολειπόμενοι. 

Unless the text is corrupt, οὐκ negatives both ὀλέγων and ἀπολειπό- 
μένοι, ἃ second οὐκ, which is required by the sense, being, through 
a confusion perhaps due to -the sense of euphony, omitted. Cp. 
note on iii. 49. 2. Classen’s explanation, ‘ not without feeble im- 
precations,’ or ‘imprecations uttered in a feeble. voice,’ is not 
really defended by the Homeric φθεγξάμενος ὀλίγῃ oni, Od. xiv. 492, 
even if the usage of a word in Thucydides could be supported 
by Homer. 


καὶ τούτων of τε ἄλλοι πάντες ἔφερον 6 τί τις ἐδύνατο ἕκαστος χρήσιμον, 
καὶ οἱ ὁπλῖται καὶ οἱ ἱππῆς παρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτοὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν σιτία 
ὑπὸ τοῖς ὅπλοις. 

‘And of these forty thousand men every one was taking with 
him what he could which might be of use; even the heavy-armed 
and the knights were carrying their own food for themselves 
(αὐτοί). ὑπὸ τοῖς ὅπλοις, either 1) ‘under their shields,’ or 2)* ‘ while 
actually under arms.’ 


ἡ ἰσομοιρία τῶν κακῶν, ἔχουσά τινα ὅμως τὸ μετὰ πολλῶν κούφισιν. 

‘The common suffering, having in its very community an element 
of alleviation.’ τὸ pera πολλῶν, ‘inasmuch as it was common to 
many ;’ ‘acc. of reference,’ explaining in what the consolation 


consisted; or acc. in apposition with κούφισιν. Cp. note on i 
87. 1. 


ὁρῶν δὲ ὁ Νικίας τὸ στράτευμα ἀθυμοῦν καὶ ἐν μεγάλῃ μεταβολῇ ὅν, 
ἐπιπαριὼν ὡς ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐθάρσυνέ τε καὶ παρεμυθεῖτο, βοῇ τε 
χρώμενος ἔτι μᾶλλον ἑκάστοις καθ᾽ οὖς γίγνοιτο ὑπὸ προθυμίας, καὶ βον- 
λόμενος ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον γεγωνίσκων ὠφελεῖν. 

These words are generally supposed to mean, ‘raising his voice 
higher than in his previous speeches,’ c. 61-64, 69. But the 
reference is too distant: it is better to take the words ἔτι μᾶλλον 
closely with ἑκάστοις, ‘raising his voice higher and higher as he 
went from one to another.’ This explanation is confirmed by the 
indefiniteness of the optative, καθ᾽ obs γίγνοιτο, ‘to whom, from time 
to time, he came.’ 


NOTES, BOOK ΡΠ]. 453 


ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἡ μὲν ἐλπὶς ὅμως θρασεῖα τοῦ μέλλοντος, ai δὲ ξυμφυραὶ οὐ κατ᾽ 77. 3. 
ἀξίαν δὴ φοβοῦσι. τάχα δὲ ἂν καὶ λωφήσειαν. 

ὅμως, ‘notwithstanding our miserable plight.’ Cp. note on vii. 
1, 2. 

ov κατ᾽ ἀξίαν δή, 1)* ‘cause me less fear than they ought to do,’ 
or ‘ would naturally do.’ This explanation accords with the con- 
solatory tone of the speech, although the expression κατ᾽ ἀξίαν is 
singular. 

Or 2) emphasizing οὐ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν, and supplying, not ἐμέ, but ὑμᾶς 
after φοβοῦσι, ‘our misfortunes terrify you more than they ought to 
do,’ i.e. are out of proportion to our offences. (Classen.) 

Or 3) κατ᾽ ἀξίαν may be taken, ‘do not frighten me as if they 
were deserved by us,’ ΞΞ οὐ καὶ ἀξίαν εἰσὶ καὶ οὐ φοβοῦσί pe. 

Or 4) ‘ although I admit that there is something alarming in the 
very undeservedness of these calamities. But they may pass away.’ 
Thucydides is supposed to be balancing between opposite points 
of view. And it is true that he does not always observe rhetorical 
consistency. But the inconsistency, especially with the words rais 
παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν νῦν κακοπαθείαις supra, is greater than can be admitted. 
For Nicias, after telling the Athenians not to .be alarmed at their 
undeserved misfortunes, could hardly acknowledge that he was 
alarmed at them himself. And οὐ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν is more naturally 
construed with the verb. 

At first sight it would appear better to take ἀξία in the same 
sense in both expressions. But in this, as in many other passages, 
the memory of the writer supplies the same instead of a more 
appropriate word, though in another sense. This is not an un- 
common phenomenon of tautology. Cp. note on iii. 12. 2, and 
Plato, Rep. 450 D compared with 451 A, where the words dore 
εὖ pe παραμυθεῖ are the repetition, in a different sense, of καλῶς εἶχεν 
ἡ παραμυθία. 

The fear of Nicias that the army has incurred the jealousy of 
Heaven is quite in accordance with the feeling which he expressed 
at the original proposal of the expedition, vi. 9. All his life long 
he has been guarding against the jealousy of the Gods (cp. πολλὰ 
és θεοὺς νόμιμα δεδιήτημαι); and now he and the expedition have 
incurred the anger of some God. But the time has come when 


454 THUCYDIDES. 


77. 3. they have suffered enough, and he is hopeful that the divine wrath 


77. 4. 


77. 4. 


77. 6. 


77. 6. 


77. ἡ. 


may be pacified. 


καὶ ἡμᾶς εἰκὸς viv τά Te ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐλπίζειν ἠπιώτερα ἕξειν" οἴκτου 
γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀξιώτεροι ἤδη ἐσμὲν ἣ φθόνου. 

ἀπ’ αὐτῶν irregularly refers to τοῦ θεοῦ: ‘God’ and ‘gods’ 
being hardly distinguishable in the mouth of a Greek. Or Thucy- 
dides may have written ἀπὸ τοῦ θείου (Kriiger), from which θεοί may 
be supplied. 


λογίζεσθε δέ, ὅτι αὐτοί τε πόλις εὐθύς ἐστε ὅποι ἂν καθέζησθε, καὶ 
ἄλλη οὐδεμία ὑμᾶς τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ ofr’ ἂν ἐπιόντας δέξαιτο ῥᾳδίως οὔτ 
ἂν ἱδρυθέντας που ἐξαναστήσειςε. 

ἄλλη, 1) ‘no city except Syracuse,’ or 2)* opposing αὐτοί re τῶν 
ἔστε to ἄλλη οὐδεμία, ‘you will be a city which no other city can 
match.’ . 


σπουδὴ δὲ ὁμοίως καὶ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν ἔσται τῆς ὁδοῦ 
Future in the sense of imperative, ‘ You will have to hurry 
forward day and night alike.’ 


προπέπεμπται δ᾽ ὡς αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀπαντᾶν εἰρημένον καὶ σιτία ἄλλα κομίζειν. 

προπέπεμπται is the true reading found in the Vatican and two 
other MSS., nearly all the rest reading προπέμπετε, which is un 
meaning. καί before ἀπαντᾶν answers to καί before σιτία. 


ἄνδρες yap πόλις καὶ οὐ τείχη οὐδὲ νῆες ἀνδρῶν xevai. 
Cp. Alcacus, 23 [11, 12] Bergk,— 
ἄνδρες πόληος πύργος ἀρεύϊοι" 
Acsch. Pers. 348,— 
ἔστ᾽ dp ᾿Αθηνῶν ἔστ᾽ ἀπόρθητος πόλις. 
ἀνδρῶν γὰρ ὄντων ἕρκος ἐστιν ἀσφαλές. 
Soph. Oed. Tyr. 53 [0]].----- 
ὡς εἴπερ ἄρξεις τῆσδε γῆς, ὥσπερ κρατεῖς, 
ξὺν ἀνδράσιν κάλλιον ἣ κενῆς κρατεῖν" 
ὡς οὐδέν ἐστιν οὔτε πύργος οὔτε ναῦς 
ἔρημος ἀνδρῶν μὴ ξυνοικούντων ἔσω. 
Eur. Phrixus (Dindorf, 820. 10),— 


ai yap πόλεις εἴσ᾽ ἄνδρες, οὐκ ἐρημία. 


NOTES, BOOK ΡΠ. 455 


τοὺς δὲ σκενοφόρους καὶ τὸν πλεῖστον ὄχλον ἐντὸς εἶχον οἱ ὁπλῖται. 78. 2. 
τὸν πλεῖστον ὄχλον, the light armed, and the camp followers. 


καὶ ἐπειδή τε ἐγένοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διαβάσει τοῦ ᾿Ανάπου ποταμοῦ, εὗρον én’ 78. 3. 
αὐτῷ παρατεταγμένους τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ ξυμμάχων, καὶ τρεψάμενοι 
αὐτοὺς καὶ κρατήσαντες τοῦ πόρου ἐχώρουν ἐς τὸ πρόσθεν" οἱ δὲ Συρακό- 
σιοι παριππεύοντές τε προσέκειντο καὶ ἐσακοντίζοντες of ψιλοί. 

τέ after ἐπειδή involves an anacoluthon, and is answered either 
by καὶ τρεψάμενοι αὐτούς (in which case τέ is really to be taken with 
εὗρον, the main verb of the sentence) or by οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι : ‘ they 
both found the Syracusans at the ford, and were harassed by 
them on the other side of it.’ 

καὶ ἐσακοντίζοντες οἱ Ψιλοί, Scil. τῶν Συρακοσίων, part subsumed 
under the whole. 


καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐπίοιεν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὑπεχώρουν, εἰ δ᾽ ἀναχωροῖεν, ἐπέκειντο, 79. 5. 
καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς ὑστάτοις προσπίπτοντες, εἴ πως κατὰ βραχὺ τρεψάμενοι 
πᾶν τὸ στράτευμα φοβηήσειαν. 

καὶ μάλιστα, Scil. ἐπέκειντο. Cp. for similar tactics ii. 79 med., iii. 
97 fin., iv. 33. 


ἦν δὲ ἡ ξύμπασα ὁδὸς αὕτη οὐκ ἐπὶ Κατάνης τῷ στρατεύματι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ 80. 2. 
τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τῆς Σικελίας τὸ πρὸς Καμάριναν καὶ Γέλαν καὶ τὰς ταύτῃ 
πόλεις καὶ Ἑλληνίδας καὶ βαρβάρους. 

ἡ ξύμπασα, i.e. the whole march since the Athenians left Syracuse, 
and not merely the new direction which their march took after 
they were intercepted by the Syracusans. Diodorus indeed says 
(xiii. 18) that they marched first in the direction of Catana. But 
it is more likely that he misunderstood this passage of Thucydides 
than that he had any independent information. The worthlessness 
of his testimony may be measured by his statement that the divi- 
sions of Nicias and Demosthenes both surrendered together at the 
river Assinarus (xiii. 19). 

The Athenians, finding their way blocked at the head of the 
valley by which they had intended to reach the Sicels of the interior, 
turned to the south-east first, and then due south. They were 
intending to take the coast road, till they had got so far from 
Syracuse that they might hope to find the passes unguarded, and 


80. 2. 


Ι 
456 THUCYDIDES. 


then to turn up by one of the neighbouring valleys into the Sicel 
country. 


ἅμα δὲ τῇ ἕῳ ἀφικνοῦνται ὅμως πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ ἐσβάντες ἐς 


. τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿Ελωρινὴν καλουμένην ἐπορεύοντο... ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐγένοντο ἐπὶ τῷ 


ποταμῷ, εὗρον καὶ ἐνταῦθα φυλακήν τινα τῶν Συρακοσίων ἀποτειχίζουσάν 
[τε] καὶ ἀποσταυροῦσαν τὸν πόρον. 

ἀφικνοῦνται probably, and ἐπεὶ δ᾽ κιτὰλ. certainly, refer only to the 
first division of the army under Nicias. The Syracusans had 
occupied the river in accordance with the orders of Gylippus, c. 74. 
There were many places to be guarded, and the troops at the 
ford would probably be few. Hence the ease with which, here as 
at the Anapus, they were dispersed by the Athenians. 

The ᾿Ακραῖον λέπας and the three small streams Cacyparis, Erineus, 
and Assinarus, mark the different stages in the route of the Athe- 
nians, After the repulse at the ᾿Ακραῖον λέπας, they returned to the 
coast by night. The two divisions of the army thus far kept toge- 
ther, but they now parted, and by the middle of the next day Nicias 
was fifty stadia in advance, though at that time he must still have 
been at a considerable distance from the river Erineus. It is clear 
therefore that Demosthenes never passed the Cacyparis, for the 
distance between the two streams is not more than forty stadia. 
(See Holm, Geschichte von Sicilien, vol. 11. pp. 400, 401.) 

Nicias, after halting during this and the next night at the 
Erineus, passed on to the Assinarus, where he was compelled to 
surrender. Why the division under his command continued their 
march along the coast instead of turning up the valley of the 
Cacyparis or the Erineus, which would have been the nearest 
way to the Sicels, it is impossible to say. We are only told that 
they at first intended to take the way of the Cacyparis, but were 
led on by their guides to the Erineus (c. 80 fin.) 

Among the glens leading from the neighbourhood of Syracuse 
into the interior, there is, according to Holm (I. c.), only one in which 
the road passes up a steep hill between two precipitous ravines. 
This pass, now called Salita delle forche, is identified by him with 
the ᾿Ακραῖον λέπας. The approach to it, at a distance of about half 
a mile, runs through a ravine called Cava Spampinato, or Cava di 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 457 


culatrello, and easily admits of such an operation as the attempted 80. 6. 
cutting off the Athenian army in the rear by the Syracusans (c. 79 © 
med.) 


θᾶσσόν τε γὰρ ὁ Νικίας ἦγε, νομίζων οὐ τὸ ὑπομένειν ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ 81. 3. 
ἑκόντας εἶναι καὶ μάχεσθαι σωτηρίαν... ὃ δὲ Δημοσθένης ἐτύγχανέ τε τὰ 4. 
πλείω ἐν πόνῳ ξυνεχεστέρῳ ὧν διὰ τὸ ὑστέρῳ ἀναχωροῦντι αὐτῷ πρώτῳ 
ἐπικεῖσθαι τοὺς πολεμίους καὶ τότε γνοὺς τοὺς Συρακοσίους διώκοντας οὐ 
προὐχώρει μᾶλλον ἣ ἐς μάχην ξυνετάσσετο κ-τιλ. 

ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης answers to θᾶσσόν τε γὰρ ὁ Νικίας, cp. note on i. 

11. 1. 

καὶ τότε refers to the time when Demosthenes began to be sur- 
rounded, § 2 supra. He had been more constantly in difficulties 
than Nicias because he marched last, and now he prepared to 
fight instead of retreating, and so fell into utter confusion. 


ἀνειληθέντες yap ἔς τι χωρίον ᾧ κύκλῳ μὲν τειχίον περιῆν, ὁδὸς δὲ ἔνθεν 81 4, 
τε καὶ ἔνθεν κιτι.λ. 

ὁδός κτλ. ‘A way round,’ or ‘on both sides of, the enclosure,’ 
which they missed, and which enabled the enemy to surround them. 


καὶ of ᾿Αθηναῖαι ἠπείγοντο πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ασσίναρον ποταμόν, ἅμα μὲν g4, 2. 
βιαζόμενοι ὑπὸ τῆς πανταχόθεν προσβολῆς ἱππέων τε πολλῶν καὶ τοῦ ἄλλον 
ὄχλου, οἰόμενοι ῥᾷόν τι σφίσιν ἔσεσθαι, ἣν διαβῶσι τὸν ποταμόν, ἅμα δὲ 
ὑπὸ τῆς ταλαιπωρίας καὶ τοῦ πιεῖν ἐπιθυμίᾳ. ὡς δὲ γίγνονται én’ αὐτῷ, 3. 
ἐσπίπτουσιν οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ ἔτι, ἀλλὰ πᾶς τέ τις διαβῆναι αὐτὸς πρῶτος 
βουλόμενος, καὶ οἱ πολέμιοι ἐπικείμενοι χαλεπὴν ἤδη τὴν διάβασιν ἐποίουν. 

1) ἠπείγοντο is the principal verb of both clauses, ἅμα μὲν... ἅμα 
δέ. οἰόμενοι is the chief participle of the first clause, to which 
βιαζόμενοι (== ἐπειδὴ ἐβιάζοντο) is subordinated. ἠπείγοντο οἰόμενοι... 
ἠπεΐγοντο ὑπὸ τῆς ταλαιπωρίας. ‘They pressed on towards the river, 
in the first place thinking, as they were harassed by the cavalry 
and the light armed, that they would be somewhat better off if 
they crossed it, and in the second place impelled by fatigue and 
thirst.’ 

Or 2) βιαζόμενοι may be taken as the chief participle of the first 
clause, and supplied again with ὑπὸ τῆς ταλαιπωρίας. 


84. 3. 


84. 4. 


86. 2. 


458 THUCYDIDES. \ 


βουλόμενος, scil. ἐσπίπτει, although τέ and καί show that the 
pressure of the crowd as well as the attacks of the enemy are con- = -- 
ceived as increasing the difficulty of the passage. 


ἐν κοίλῳ ὄντι τῷ ποταμῷ. 

‘In the bed of the river which flowed between high banks.’ Cp. «3y =p. 
c. 87 init. ἐν κοίλφ χωρίῳ, said of the stone quarries, and i. 1078" 4} 07 
med. és ὁδόν τινα κοΐλην καὶ λοχμώδη. 


κατεβίβασαν ἐς τὰς λιθοτομίας, ἀσφαλεστάτην εἶναι νομίσαντες τήρησυ.  Κ{“«ἀἰἴν. 

Cp. Cicero, Act. Secunda in Verrem, 5. 27 (quoted by Classen) : Ξ:- 
‘Latomias Syracusanas omnes audistis, plerique nostis. Opus 65:55 -ῷἪῃ est 
ingens, magnificum, regum et tyrannorum: totum est in saxo ix. in 
mirandam altitudinem depresso et multorum operis penitus excisoc<—> = iso; 
nihil tam clausum ad exitus, nihil tam septum undique, nihil στο. ΕΞ -Δπὶ 
tutum ad custodias, nec fieri nec cogitari potest. In has latomiae δὲξ Zias, 
si qui publice custodiendi sunt, etiam ex ceteris oppidis Siciliass>m Mliae 
deduci imperantur.’ 


Νικίαν δὲ καὶ Δημοσθένην ἄκοντος Γυλίππου ἀπέσφαξαν. 
_ Various accounts were given by later writers of the deaths ὦ» of 
Nicias and Demosthenes. By Justin (iv. 5), Demosthenes is sa «=aid 
to have put an end to himself, by Plutarch (Nic. xxvii) he is states» —itted 
to have wounded himself when he was taken prisoner. HEE lis 
attempt on his own life was also mentioned by Philistus (Paus. —.i. 
29. 9), γράφω δὲ οὐδὲν διάφορα 7 Φίλιστος, ὃς ἔφη Δημοσθένην μὲν σπονδ was 
ποιήσασθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις πλὴν αὑτοῦ, καὶ ὡς ἡλίσκετο, αὑτὸν ἐπιχειρεῖν ἀπ᾿παιακτο. 
κτεῖναι. Plutarch (Nic. xxviii.) tells us that, according to Timaese——us 
(circ. 300 B.c.), Demosthenes and Nicias were not put to death M=—y 
the order of the Syracusans, as Philistus and Thucydides relate- < 
but that Hermocrates gave them an opportunity of committing 
suicide. By Diodorus (xiii. 33), Nicias and Demosthenes are said 
to have been put to death at the instigation of Gylippus. But such 
witnesses (with the single exception of Philistus, if he is rightly 
cited) are not worth adducing either in opposition to the authority 
of Thucydides, or in support of him. Pausanias (I. c.) further relates 
that the name of Demosthenes was inserted, and the name of Nicias 
omitted, on the column at Athens which commemorated those who 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 459 


fell at Syracuse. The omission of the latter was attributed to his 86. 2. | 
voluntary surrender. 


τοὺς yap ἐκ τῆς νήσου ἄνδρας τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὁ Νικίας προὐθυμήθη 86. 3. 
σπονδάς, πείσας τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους, ποιήσασθαι ὥστε ἀφεθῆναι. 

In ὥστε ἀφεθῆναι, ‘and then the prisoners would have been 
liberated,’ there is a confusion of the object and result. Nicias 
wanted to make peace, and the indirect effect of this would have 
been to liberate the prisoners. 

ποιήσασθαι is governed by προὐθυμήθη. The commas should be 
placed, not after προὐθυμήθη and ποιήσασθαι, but after σπονδάς and 
᾿Αθηναίους. For Thucydides can hardly have meant to say that the 
liberation of the prisoners was the object which Nicias had in view 
when negotiating the treaty of peace. 


οἱ μὲν δείσαντες, ὅτι πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκεκοινολόγηντο, μὴ βασανιζόμενος διὰ 86. 4. 
τὸ τοιοῦτο ταραχὴν σφίσιν ἐν εὐπραγίᾳ ποιήσῃ. 

διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτο, 501]. ὅτε ὑπωπτεύθησαν πρὸς αὐτὸν κεκοινολογῆσθαι. 

ἐν εὐπραγίᾳ. It is singular that the Syracusan traitors should 
have considered this a time of prosperity for them. 


καὶ ὁ μὲν τοιαύτῃ ἣ ὅτι ἐγγύτατα τούτων αἰτίᾳ ἐτεθνήκει, ἥκιστα δὴ ἄξιος 86. 5. 
ὧν τῶν γε ἐπ᾿ ἐμοῦ Ἑλλήνων ἐς τοῦτο δυστυχίας ἀφικέσθαι διὰ τὴν πᾶσαν 
ἐς ἀρετὴν vevop:opévny ἐπιτήδευσιν. 

The words πᾶσαν ἐς ἀρετήν are found only in five good (Cass., 
Ven., Vat., C. and F.) and three indifferent MSS. (Gr., Ὁ. and I.) But 
their omission leaves a poor sense. For the words διὰ τὴν νενομισ- 

” μένην ἐπιτήδευσιν can only mean, ‘ because of his customary practice.’ 
The perception of their feebleness has probably led to the insertion 
of ἐς τὸ θεῖον after νενομισμένην in a few MSS. Lit. 1)* ‘ because his 
practice had habitually conformed to all virtue.” Or 2) taking πᾶσαν 
with ἐπιτήδευσιν, ‘ because his whole course of life had been regularly 
passed in conformity to virtue,’ or in other words, ‘ his whole life 
had been a continual practice of virtue.’ Or 3) νερομισμένη ἐπιτή- 
devots may be opposed to παρανομία. ‘Because he ever practised 
virtue, or lived virtuously, in the observance of customary obliga- 
tions.’ But the construction of ἐς. ἀρετήν (ΞΞ ἀρετῆς), and the mean- 
ing of νενομισμένη (ΞΞ νομίμη), are forced. 


87. 1. 


87. 4. 


460 THUCYDIDES. 


καὶ ai νύκτες ἐπιγιγνόμεναι τοὐναντίον μετοπωριναὶ καὶ ψυχραὶ τῇ pera- 
βολῇ ἐς ἀσθένειαν ἐνεωτέριζον. 
‘Produced violent changes which resulted in sickness.’ 


ἐληφθησαν δὲ ol ξύμπαντες, ἀκριβείᾳ μὲν χαλεπὸν ἐξειπεῖν, ὅμως δὲ οὐκ 
ἔλάσσους ἑπτακισχιλίων. 

Yet the whole number, on the eighth day before the capture, had 
been not less than 40,000, c. 75 med. The number of Demo- 
sthenes’ army who surrendered was 6000, c. 82 med. It seems to 
follow that the public prisoners brought in from Nicias’ army, i.e. 
the prisoners exclusive of those whom the Syracusan soldiers appro- 
priated, were only about 1000. Of those who escaped to Catana 
c. 85 fin., a trace is found in Lysias (?) pro Polystrato (xx.) 26, 
where Polystratus says, ἐπειδὴ δὲ διεφθάρη (scil. τὸ στρατόπεδον) καὶ 
ἀνεσώθην εἰς Κατάνην, ἐληϊζόμην ὁρμώμενος ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους κακῶς 
ἐποίουν, ὦστε τῇ θεῷ τε τὰς δεκάτας ἐξαιρεθῆναι πλέον ἣ τριάκοντα μνᾶς καὶ 


τοῖς στρατιώταις εἰς σωτηρίαν, ὅσοι ἐν τοῖς πολεμίοις ἦσαν. 


BOOK VIII. 


We are told by Marcellinus, the unknown Greek writer whose 
life of Thucydides is commonly prefixed to his works, that the 
genuineness of the eighth Book was denied by some ancient critics. 
When they had once entertained the doubt their fertile imagina- 
tion readily invented fictions in support of their opinion: some 
attributing the composition of it to his daughter, others to Xeno- 
phon, others to Theopompus. Marcellinus is at some pains to 
refute them :—‘ The work was not within the compass of a woman’s 
genius:’ ‘the style shows unmistakeably (μόνον οὐχὶ Bog) that it 
could not have been Xenophon’s,’ and ‘it could not have been 
Theopompus’;’ ‘the finer judgments rightly attributed it to Thu- 
cydides.’ Such queries, and the answers to them, are valuable, 
not for their own sake, but for the light which they throw on the 
manner of reasoning or thinking prevalent among ancient critics. 

It is unnecessary to refute seriously an opinion which has no 
serious basis. The eighth Book is quoted by ancient writers: it is 
found in all MSS. except those which, like H. and Vind., are in- 
complete: it contains minute references to the previous history, 
(viii. 96 and i. 70 and vii. 55; viii. 15 and ii. 24,) unlikely to have 
been made by a forger. The love of truth, the power of thought, 
the absence of moral approbation or disapprobation, the irony, the 
perception of character, the moderation of statement, the general 
excellence, no less than the mechanical arrangement into summers 
and winters, and the minutiae of language and phraseology, ‘ cry 
aloud,’ in the words of Marcellinus, that the eighth Book is the — 
composition of Thucydides. 

It is remarked by Dionysius (De Thuc. Hist. Jud. c. xvi) that 
no speeches are found in the eighth Book; and it is not unlikely 
that so trifling an accident may have given rise to the suspicion of 
its genuineness. If it were worth while to consider such a diffi- 
culty at all, it might be remarked that in the fifth and the seventh 


462 THUCYDIDES. 


Books the speeches are few and unimportant, and that the matter 
of the eighth is of a kind more suited to the ‘oratio obliqua,’ of 
which Thucydides has already given a striking example in iz 13 
and elsewhere. The turbulent assembly, the general thought, the 
policy of Alcibiades and Tissaphernes, the intentions of the oli- 
garchy, are best described in this new manner. So far was 


== rT 
“ax! 


— = Ai- 
ἘΞ. = :s 


Cratippus, the contemporary of Thucydides, from being right (if “2 > (if 


indeed he be correctly reported by Dionysius, |. c.) in saying that 
the historian, having arrived at the conclusion that the speeches 
were wearisome to the hearers, ceased to introduce them in the 
latter part of his history. 

Even if the eighth Book were in some degree inferior to the 
previous ones, that would be no real reason for ascribing it to 
another author. For no author is in every part of his work up to 
his highest level: he may often fall considerably below it. But no 


first stunning effect of the great blow, the reviving courage of the 


<> -=0 
such inferiority is justly chargeable against the eighth Book. The <==» m7 


—=—» We 


citizens, the revolution and counter-revolution, the characters of ἜΝ <©f 


Antiphon, Phrynichus, Theramenes, and Peisander, the ‘ scare’ at 
Athens when the Peloponnesian fleet was hovering about the 
coast: the interview of Tissaphernes with the Athenian envoys, 
the ‘inevitableness’ of Alcibiades, life in the camp at Samos and 
Miletus, are among the most perfect and graphic descriptions to 
be found in Thucydides. 

It is another question whether the eighth Book may not bear 
some marks of haste and want of finish. The licence of language, 
which is great in previous books, seems to exceed all bounds in 
some passages of the eighth, and we cannot reasonably ascribe the 
irregularity to MS. corruptions alone. We must not, indeed, 
suppose that, however often Thucydides had rewritten his history, 
he would have conformed precisely to the rules of a modern Greek 
Grammar. On the other hand, like every other author, though not 
‘sitting down at a desk to write,’ he must have composed, either 
in thought or with pen in hand, many of his sentences more than 
once, adding and altering for the sake of perspicuity and force. 
That is a process which takes time: nor is it unlikely that the same 
cause which left the work a fragment may have interfered with the 


—m ft 


ΜΡ κα] 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 463 


“ma mal revision of it. And the hypothesis of such haste or incom- 
--» leteness is the most natural account of the more frequent ana- 
<> olutha and other anomalies of language exhibited in this part of 
᾿ς work. 


A few examples will remind the reader of some of the facts on 


wswhich the above remarks are based: — 


vili. c. 14, the ré’s are in great disorder. 
» ¢. 23, confusion of reading: παρέπλει and παραπέμπει : diffi- 
culty of ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν πεζός. 

. 29, the extra payment of the ships παρὰ πέντε vais. 
. 45 med. οὐχ ὑπολιπόντες κιτιλ. 

c. 63 med. difficulty and confusion of reading. 
» Cc. 71 med. ἣ καὶ αὐτοβοεί κιτιλ. 

c. 89 med. οὐ τὸ ἀπαλλάξειν τοῦ ἄγαν és ὀλίγους ἐλθεῖν. 


ς 
ς 


Cp. also the examples collected in Poppo, ed. min. Introduction 
“to Book viii, and Kriiger, Dionysii Historiographica, p. 250 foll. 


és δὲ τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἐπειδὴ ἠγγέλθη, ἐπὶ πολὺ μὲν ἠπίστουν καὶ τοῖς πάνυ 1. 1. 
τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔργον διαπεφευγόσι καὶ σαφῶς ἀγγέλλουσι, 
μὴ οὕτω γε dy πανσυδὶ διεφθάρθαι. 

τοῖς πάνυ τῶν στρατιωτῶν, 1) ‘the most trustworthy soldiers.’ It 
is hard however to extract this or any other suitable meaning from 
oi πάνυ στρατιῶτα. The expression τοῦ πάνν Περικλέους, ‘the great 
Pericles,’ Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 1, is not sufficiently parallel. It is 
better 2)* to take the word πάνυ with διαπεφευγόσι, ‘they disbelieved 
the actual,’ or ‘very, soldiers who had escaped from the scene of 
action ;’ and so probably τῶν wavy στρατηγῶν, viii. 89 init. 


χαλεποὶ μὲν ἦσαν τοῖς ξυμπροθυμηθεῖσι τῶν ῥητόρων τὸν ἔκπλουν, ὥσπερ 1. 1. 
οὐκ αὐτοὶ ψηφισάμενοι. 

Either 1) ‘who had joined with the people,’ or 2) ‘who had 
vied with one another, in promoting the expedition.’ Cp. οἱ τῶν 
Λακεδαιμονίων ξύμμαχοι ξυμπροθυμηθέντες, c. 2 med., either ‘joining in 
the universal excitement,’ or ‘ united among themselves.’ 


ὠργίζοντο δὲ καὶ τοῖς χρησμολόγοις τε καὶ μάντεσι καὶ ὁπόσοι τι τότε 1. 1. 
αὐτοὺς θειάσαντες ἐπήλπισαν ὡς λήψονται Σικελίαν. 
μάντις is the more general term, including divination of all kinds. 


2. 2. 


2. 3. 


464 THUCYDIDES. 


. The μάντις is opposed by Plato in a fanciful passage of the Timaeus 


(72 A, B) to the προφήτης, who only announces the result of divina- 
tion. The χρησμολόγος is the promulgator or circulator of oracles, 
spoken of not without a certain contempt, ii. 8 med. πολλὰ μὲν λόγια 
ἐλέγοντο, πολλὰ δὲ χρησμολόγοι ἦδον : ii. 21 med. χρησμολόγοι re δον 
χρησμοὺς παντοίους. μάντις being a general term for ‘diviner,’ is 
also used for a state or official diviner, as frequently by the Tra- 
gedians, and by Thucydides, vi. 69 med. μάντεις σφάγια προὔφερον τὰ 
νομιζόμενα : Vii. 50 fin. πρίν, ὡς of μάντεις ἐξηγοῦντο, τρὶς ἐννέα ἡμέρας 
μεῖναι. 

ἐπήλπισαν, SCil. αὐτούς, ‘made them believe’ by divination ; used 
actively by late authors, Appian, Lucian, and Dio Cassius, and 
cited by Suid. 5. v. ἐπελπίζων and Πυθαγόρας ᾿Ἐφέσιος. 


καὶ μηδ᾽ ὑπολείπειν λόγον αὐτοῖς ὡς τά γ᾽ ἐπιὸν θέρος οἷοί τε ἔσονται 
περιγενέσθαι. 

‘They would not leave them any ground for saying that they 
would last over the coming summer,’ or ‘ they would not hear of 
their lasting.’ In the phrase ὑπολείπειν λόγον the feeling of the 


~ 
“2 


—— 
=e 


allies respecting the Athenians is transferred with a certain addi- —— 
tional force to the Athenians themselves. Cp. for the thought vil. —— 
28 med., and for ὑπολείπειν λόγον Antiph. Tetral. B. 8. (ili.) Δπεκα 


εἰ μὲν yap τὸ ἀκόντιον ἔξω τῶν ὅρων τῆς αὑτοῦ πορείας ἐπὶ τὸν παίδαιακπαα 


. φ 
ἐξενεχθὲν ἔτρωσεν αὐτόν, οὐδεὶς ἡμῖν λόγος ὑπελείπετο μὴ φονεὺς εἰναι 


(Kriiger). 


καὶ μάλιστα, ὅτι of ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας αὐτοῖς ξύμμαχοι πολλῇ δυνάμει. 
κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην ἤδη τοῦ ναυτικοῦ προσγεγενημένου, ἅμα τῷ ἦρι, ὡς εἰκός, 
παρέσεσθαι ἔμελλον. 

In the early part of the war the Sicilian Greeks, though invited 
to send ships (il. 7, cp. iii. 86 init.), had never thought of com- 
plying with the request, whereas 1)* they had now been compelled 
by circumstances to add a fleet to their army (προσ-). 

The words κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην κιτιλ. have also been referred 2) to the 
increased efforts of the Peloponnesians themselves; but they can 
hardly be said to have ‘acquired a navy of necessity,’ like the 
Sicilians. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 465 


πρασσόντων δὲ ταῦτα ἀμφοτέρων καὶ ὄντων οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἣ ὥσπερ apyo- 5. 1. 
μένων ἐν κατασκευῇ τοῦ πολέμου. 

κατασκευή 1S a stronger word than the more usual παρασκευή. 
‘ Laying the foundation for a new war, as if they were just beginning.’ 

The use of κατασκευάζεσθαι and παρασκευάζεσθαι is well illustrated 
by 11. 85 init. κελεύοντες ἄλλην ναυμαχίαν βελτίω κατασκευάζεσθαι, com- 
pared with ii. 86 med. μελετῶντές τε καὶ παρασκευαζόμενοι τὴν ναυ- 
μαχίαν, where παρασκευάζεσθαι applies to the immediate preparation 
for the battle, and κατασκευάζεσθαι to the creation of the circum- 
stances under which it was to be brought about. 


ὑπὸ βασιλέως yap νεωστὶ ἐτύγχανε πεπραγμένος τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ 5. §. 
ἀρχῆς φόρους, obs δι’ ᾿Αθηναίους ἀπὸ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων οὐ δυνάμενος 
πράσσεσθαι ἐπωφείλησε. 

This passage has been supposed to show that, although the Greek 
cities had long ceased to pay tribute to the King (for it would be 
ridiculous to imagine that they paid two tributes, one to the King 
and the other to the Athenians for liberating them from the King); 
yet that the tribute account was kept, as before the defeat of the 
Persians, in the King’s books, and that encouraged by the rumour 
of the Athenian reverses he had now at length begun to think of 
collecting it. It is true that Herodotus, in a well-known passage 
(vi. 42, see Professor Rawlinson), speaks of the tribute which was 
imposed on the Ionian cities after the revolt, p.c. 493, as con- 
tinuing to his own day, φόρους ἔταξε ἑκάστοισι, of κατὰ χώρην διατε- 
λέουσι ἔχοντες ἐκ τούτου τοῦ χρόνον αἰεὶ Ere καὶ ἐς ἐμέ, ὡς ἐτάχθησαν ἐξ 
᾿Αρταφέρνεος. But he is supposed to mean, not that the tribute was 
paid, but only that the assessment remained the same. See note in 
Grote, Part II. ch. xlv. ad fin. The orators and historians also 
spoke of a perhaps fabulous Peace of Cimon or Callias, not men- 
tioned in Thucydides, by which the cities in Asia were freed from 
the tribute. For authorities see Grote, and cp. note on viii. 56. 4. 

It must be admitted, on the other hand, that this conception of 
the fact does violence to the text of Herodotus, who certainly 
implies that the tribute continued to the time at which he wrote 
his history, that is to say, to the middle or end of the Pelopon- 
nesian war. It is improbable that he should have confused the 


VOL. II. Hh 


δ. 5. 


466 THUCYDIDES. 


mere entry of the tribute with the payment of it. He must have 
known whether it was paid or not, and if he had intended to dis- 
tinguish between the assessment and the payment he would n<t 
have expressed himself so ambiguously. Not that there is anythix—% 
improbable in the supposition that such a register of unpaid deE—ts 
may have been kept for some generations by an oriental monarc ~ —h; 


and the existence of such a register would agree with the words of 
Thucydides, who here tells us that in the nineteenth year of the w= —ar, 
412 s.c., the Persian tribute was still considered by the Persians ὀ ὀ- to 


be a debt owing from the Greek cities of Asia. On the otk-ailher 
hand, the theory, however probable in itself, is not needed to expla== ain 
the fact that in a time of Athenian reverses the Great King mame==de 
an attempt to recover some of his ancient privileges. Nor is the ere 
any proof of its truth. The decline of the tribute may have be=smmeen 
gradual. All the Greek cities in Asia were not freed froma it 
immediately after the Persian War. For Thucydides informs - uS 
that the revenues of Lampsacus and Myus, two towns on or nsssmmear 
the sea coast, beside those of Magnesia in the interior of the coun —smtry, 
were assigned by the King about the year 465 for the maintena’ ——ance 
of Themistocles (i. 138 fin.) 

At what point the claims of the Athenian confederacy came ma into 
collision with the Persian demand we are not informed. I-  t is 
probable that no very exact limits separated them. We r—ammay 
certainly infer from the tenor of the history that, at some time be- 
tween the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, the tribute had ceas===2sed 
to be paid to the King by the Greek cities. But whether they ve==="ere 
all freed at the same date, e.g. by the ‘treaty of Cimon or Call las,’ 
or at various times, we have no means of determining. The cammm==les 
of the interior would probably have paid long after the cities on ὁ (δ 
coast, and it may have been from some of them that Tis==Sa- 
phernes and Pharnabazus were endeavouring to collect the reve 72Ue 
due to the King. The passage of Herodotus we must leave 
unexplained. 


’ ~ 5 
ξυνέπρασσε yap αὐτοῖς καὶ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, ᾿Ενδίῳ ἐφορεύοντι πατρικὸς és 
A ‘ [4 ’ ζω 
τὰ μάλιστα ξένος wy, ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα Λακωνικὸν ἡ οἰκία αὐτῶν κατὰ τὴν 


ξενίαν ἔσχεν᾽ Ἔνδιος γὰρ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου ἐκαλεῖτο. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 467 


‘And this was the reason why a name which was Lacedaemo- 6. 3. 

lian came into their family’ (i.e. into the family of Alcibiades), 
because of the friendship ; for Alcibiades was the name of Endius’ 
ather,’ lit. ‘he was called Endius the son of Alcibiades,’ i.e. the 
wo names alternated in his family. The word λΛακωνικόν shows 
hat αὐτῶν refers to the family of Alcibiades, and not of Endius; 
‘or there would be nothing memorable in the family of Endius 
searing a Spartan name: v. 43 med. shows that the connection 
was ancient, having existed in the time of Alcibiades’ grandfather, 
whose name was also Alcibiades (Herod. viii. 17), if not earlier. 


πέμψαντες Φρῦνιν ἄνδρα περίοικον. 8. 4. 
See note on c. 22. 1. 


rou δ᾽ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους εὐθὺς ἐπειγομένων τῶν Χίων ἀποστεῖλαι ras 7. 1. 
avs, καὶ δεδιότων μὴ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὰ πρασσόμενα αἴσθωνται (πάντες γὰρ 
οὔφα αὐτῶν ἐπρεσβεύοντο), ἀποπέμπουσιν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐς Κόρινθον 
νδρας Σπαρτιάτας τρεῖς. ᾿ 

ἀποστεῖλαι with the middle ἐπειγομένων should properly express 
n action of the Chians themselves. But the middle or reflexive 
ense may still be retained, ‘being cager in their own interest that 
ae Lacedaemonians should send ships,’ or, ‘ being eager that the 


sacedaemonians should send ships to themselves,’ i.e. the Chians. 


ἦσαν δὲ ai ξύμπασαι τῶν ξυμμαχικῶν νῆες αὐτόθι μιᾶς δέουσαι τεσ- 7, 1, 
'αράκοντα. 

αἱ ξύμπασαι τῶν ξυμμαχικῶν νῆες, ‘all the ships belonging to the 
ontingents of the allies.’ Cp. Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 12, ἐδίδασκεν ἧ 
καστον ἰσχυρὸν ἦν τῶν συμμαχικῶν (Kriiger). 


οὐκ ἐκοινωνοῦντο 1τὺν στόλον. 8.1. 
Two or three MSS. read éxowotvro. But the weight of authority 
3 in favour of ἐκοινωνοῦνττο, Though this verb is usually followed 
Υ a genitive, there is nothing in its meaning which would make 
t incapable of taking an accusative with a word of cognate 
ignification. Cp. Eur. El. 1048,— 
ris ἂν πατρὸς σοῦ φόνον ἐκοινώνησέ μοι ; 
Nor can we argue that in the time of Thucydides, when the 
Hh 2 


468 THUCYDIDES. 


8. 1. usage of the verb generally was far from fixed, the middle κοινω- 


8. 4. 


10. 


I. 


2. 


Ι, 


νεῖσθαι May not have been employed as well as the active κοινωνεῖν. 


καταφρονήσαντες τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἀδυνασίαν. 

The acc. and gen. are governed by the idea of καταγνόντες con- 
tained in καταφρονήσαντες. Cp. vi. 34 fin. δικαίως κατεγνωκότες ὅτι 
αὐτοὺς οὐ μετὰ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐφθείρομεν, Ξ:-- ἐγνωκύτες καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, where 
the meaning of κατεγνωκότες approaches that οὗ καταφρονήσαντες. 


ol δὲ Κορίνθιοι, ἐπειγομένων αὐτῶν τὸν πλοῦν, οὐ προὐθυμήθησαν ξυμπλεῖν we 
πρὶν τὰ Ἴσθμια, ἃ τότε ἦν, διεορτάσωσιν. 

αὐτῶν, 501]. the other members of the confederacy. 

As it is difficult to suppose that the Peloponnesians would haves ~,,, 
allowed three months of the summer to pass in doing nothin 
we must assume that the Isthmian games were celebrated in thar ,, 
year not later than the month of May. They occurred at interva_—ayy, 
of two years; at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fir -< 
year of an Olympiad, and at the end of the second or begixe- 
ning of the third. It has been thought that in the former case 
they took place in the middle of summer, in the latter case in 
spring, of which there is some indirect evidence in ancient writers. 
(See Krause, Pyth. Nem. Isthm. iii. § 3, and on the other side, 
Hermann, Lehrb. der gottesdienstl. Alterthtimer, 49. 14,15.) But 
this hypothesis, even if it could be substantiated, would not help us 
here, as the year 412 is the first of an Olympiad. The difficulty 
must therefore be left unsolved. We have no direct statement as 
to the time of the Isthmian games, and the authorities usually cited, 
Schol. on Pind. Ol. 9. 83, Aen. Hell. iv. 5, Liv. xxxiii. 27, 32, 33, 
Curtius, iv. 22, Hesychius, 5. v. ἸΙσθμίασι, and Suidas, are untrust- 
worthy, or only show that they were held either in the spring or 
summer. 


τὸ πιστὸν ναῦς σφίσι ξυμπέμπειν ἐκέλευον ἐς τὸ ξυμμαχικόν. 
τὸ πιστὸν κιτιλ,, ‘as the pledge which the Athenians required οἱ 
their fidelity to the alliance.’ Cp. iii, 11 init. τὸ ἀντίπαλον δέος μόνο 


πιστὸν ἐς ξυμμαχίαν. 


ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τὰ Ἴσθμια ἐγίγνετο, καὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι (ἐπηγγέλθησαν γὸ 


3 ᾿ > > , 
ἐθεώρουν ἐς αὐτά, 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 469 


ἐπηγγέλθησαν, Scil. of ᾿Αθηναῖοι, Or ai σπονδαί understood from ra 10. 1. 
Ἴσθμια, OF τὰ Ἴσθμια may be the nominative, names of feasts being 
frequently used with plural verbs, cp. Κάρνεια yap αὐτοῖς ἐτύγχανον 
ὄντα, v. 75 init. 


ὕστερον ἄλλας προσπληρώσαντες ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα K.T.A. 10. 3. 

Not, ‘ having manned in addition to the twenty-one ships thirty- 
seven others ;’ but the Athenians, after they had returned home, 
manned an increased fleet (mpog-), making in all] thirty-seven ships. 
The expression is curious, but the meaning is required by the 
context. 

ἔπειτα ὡρμημένων αὑτῶν τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐν τῷ Πειραιῷ τῶν νεῶν καταφυγὴν 11. 3. 
ηγγέλθη. 

That ὡρμημένων αὐτῶν must mean, not ‘after they had started,’ 
but ‘when they had resolved to start,’ is clear from the words at 
the end of the chapter, ras vats ras ἐκ τῆς ἑαντῶν οὐκέτι διενοοῦντο 
πέμπειν, ἀλλὰ καί τινας προανηγμένας μετακαλεῖν. 


᾿Ἐνδίῳ τε αὐτῷ ἰδίᾳ ἔλεγε καλὸν εἶναι δι᾿ ἐκείνου ἀποστῆσαί τε ᾿Ιωνίαν 12, 2. 
καὶ βασιλέα ξύμμαχον ποιῆσαι Λακεδαιμονίοις, καὶ μὴ “Ayidos τὸ ἀγώνισμα 
τοῦτο γενέσθαι. 

1)" τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, Or τινά, must be supplied as the subject 
to ἀποστῆσαι, ‘that the Lacedaemonians should make the Ionians 
revolt,’ or ‘that the revolt of Ionia should be effected,’ δι’ ἐκείνου, 
‘through the instrumentality of Endius.’ Or 2) δι ἐκείνου is re- 
ferred to Alcibiades. But in this case the words are to be re- 
garded as subordinate or explanatory. Not ‘it would bring glory 
to Endius that he stirred up a revolt in Chios through the in- 
strumentality of Alcibiades,’—for the assistance of Alcibiades would 
diminish the glory of Endius—but ‘it would bring glory to Endius 
to stir up a revolt in Chios, and Alcibiades would assist him in 
effecting this.’ 


καὶ οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ ἐν θαύματι ἦσαν καὶ ἐκπλήξει" τοῖς δ᾽ ὀλίγοις παρεσ- 14. 2. 
κεύαστο Gore βουλήν τε τυχεῖν ξυλλεγομένην, καὶ λεγομένων λόγων ἀπό 
τε τοῦ Χαλκιδέως καὶ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου ὡς ἄλλαι τε νῆες πολλαὶ προσπλέουσι, 
καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς πολιορκίας τῶν ἐν τῷ Πειραιῷ νεῶν οὐ δηλωσάντων, ἀφί- 
στανται Χῖοι καὶ αὖθις ᾿Ερυθραῖοι ᾿Αθηναίων. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τρισὶ ναυσὶ 3. 


πλεύσαντες καὶ Κλαζομενὰς ἀφιστᾶσι. 


14. 3. 


15. 1. 


16. 2. 


16. 3. 


470 THUCYDIDES. 


βουλήν τε. Grammatically there is nothing answering to τε, 
which really couples ‘the sitting of the council’ with ‘the an- 
nouncement of reinforcements’ as though καὶ λέγεσθαι λύγους 
followed. 

In ἄλλαι τε νῆες, again, it is hard to trace the missing clause. 
καὶ of Λακεδαιμόνιοι πρόθυμοϊί εἶσι, Or SOMe similar expression, may 
have been intended to follow. Or the connection may be, ‘speeches 
were made, intimating the approach of reinforcements, and con- 
cealing the detention of the ships.’ But in both these instances the 
irregularity is softened to the ear by the καί which follows, though 
grammatically unconnected with the preceding τές Cp. note on 
i. 9. 3, §§ 2, 3, and for τέ before τοῦ Χαλκιδέως, § 1. 

ξυλλεγομένην, either 1)* ‘had assembled ;’ for the present oF 
imperfect participle may indicate a state as well as a process. 
Or 2) ‘had been assembling,’ as in the so-called use of the 
imperfect for the pluperfect, ii. 23, ἀπέστειλαν τὰς ἑκατὸν vais ἅσπερ 
παρεσκενάζοντο and elsewhere. Cp. note on v. 50. 3. Or 3) ‘that 
the council should be assembling,’ i.e. just assembled, neither long 
before nor after the appearance of Alcibiades. 

aguoract, Either the Chians, or Chalcideus and Alcibiades. 


τά τε χίλια τάλαντα, ὧν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ πολέμου ἐγλίχοντο μὴ ἅψασθιι, 
εὐθὺς ἔλυσαν τὰς ἐπικειμένας ζημίας τῷ εἰπόντι ἣ ἐπιψηφίσαντι ὑπὸ τῆς 
παρούσης ἐκπλήξεως, καὶ ἐψηφίσαντο κινεῖν. 

The imperfect construction of τὰ χίλια τάλαντα which, in the 
language of the old grammarians, would have been called an accu- 
sative absolute, i.e. without construction, is somewhat tardily sup- 
plied by the verb κινεῖν. Cp. note on i. 62. 1. 


e 


προαισθόμενος δὲ ὁ Στρομβιχίδης προανήγετο᾽ καὶ μετεωρισθεὶς ἐν 
τῷ πελάγει, ὡς ἑώρα τὰς ναῦς πολλὰς τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς Χίου φυγὴν ἐποιεῖτο ἐπὶ 
τῆς Σάμον. 

Strombichides, the Athenian admiral, sighted from Teos the 
ships under Chalcideus, and ‘proceeded to put out into the 
open sea before they arrived’ (mpoaryyero). When out of reach he 
took an observation of their numbers, and made a hasty retreat. 


καὶ ἐπέσχον μὲν οἱ πεζοί, Kat Χαλκιδέα ἐκ τῆς διώξεως περιμένοντες. 


NOTES, BOOK VIIT, 471 


καί, ‘ waiting for Chalcideus who was to join them,’ or ‘ who was 16. 4. 
to be there as well as themselves.’ 


καὶ of ᾿Αθηναῖοι κατὰ πόδας μιᾶς δεούσαις εἴκοσι ναυσὶν ἐπιπλεύ- 17. 3. 
σαντες K.T.A. 

We should expect twenty ships (not nineteen), eight under 
Strombichides, and twelve under Thrasycles; cp. c. 24 init. One of 
them may have been left behind at Samos. So c. 23 init. twenty- 
five Athenian ships are mentioned where we should expect twenty- 
six. Cp. note onc. 10. 3, c. 20. 1: also note on c. 99. 


pera δὲ ταῦτα of Χῖοι... ἔπλευσαν ἐς “Avara,...xai ἐλθούσης παρὰ 19. 1. 
Χαλκιδέως ἀγγελίας αὐτοῖς ἀποπλεῖν πάλιν, καὶ ὅτι ᾿Αμόργης παρέσται κατὰ 42. 
γῆν στρατιᾷ x.t.d, 

Anaea was friendly (iv. 75 med.), Amorges hostile (viii. 5 fin., 

28 med.), to the Chians and Peloponnesians. 

Classen is disposed to omit καί before ὅτι, on the dangerous 
principle of improving the meaning without regard to the authority 
of the MSS. But there is no necessity to suppose that the expected 
arrival of their enemy Amorges was the sole reason why Chalci- 
deus desired the Chian squadron to withdraw. 


ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους ai ἐν τῷ Πειραιῷ εἴκοσι νῆες τῶν Πελο- 20, 1. 
ποννησίων, καταδιωχθεῖσαι τότε καὶ ἐφορμούμεναι ἴσῳ ἀριθμῷ ὑπὸ ᾿Αθη- 
ναίων K.T.A, 

ἴσῳ ἀριθμῷ. These words would seem to show that the block- 
ading squadron had not been filled up to its original strength 
(thirty-seven ships, c. 10. med.) as c. 15 fin. ἑτέρας δ᾽ ἀντὶ πασῶν τῶν 
ἀπελθουσῶν νεῶν... διὰ τάχους πληρώσαντες ἀντέπεμψαν might be thought 
to imply. 


ἐς διακοσίους μέν τινας τοὺς πάντας τῶν δυνατῶν ἀπέκτεινε τετρακοσίους 81. 
δὲ φυγῇ ζημιώσαντες κιτιλ. 

ἐς διακυσίους μέν τινας τοὺς πάντας, ‘amounting to some two hun- 
dred in all. This narrative, as Grote remarks, shows that an 
oligarchical government was allowed to exist under the Athenian 
democracy. See his note, Part II. ch. ΙΧ]. med. 


᾿Αθηναίων σφίσιν αὐτονομίαν μετὰ ταῦτα ws βεβαίοις ἤδη ψηφισαμένων. 31, 


τ 


Ν 


> :.t¢ nave been found on the Acropolis 
see Appendices to Introduction. 


cy Jepors οἱ Χῖοι, ὥσπερ ἤρξαντο, οὐδὲν ἀπολεῖ- 

πω. . ev - Ἰελοποννησίων πλήθει παρόντες ἀποστῆσαι τὰς 

ὡνάκοῦι ἐμὰ ὡς πλείστοις σφίσι ξυγκινδινείειν, στρα- 

«- και εκα ναυσὶν ἐπὶ τὴν Λέσβον x... 

. w= “ue τὰς πόλεις, 1)" are governed by ὥσπερ ἥρξωντο, 

~ act. tthe Chians in sending the expedition: ayihey 

-Jependently, δ) they wanted to draw as many 

-.: imo their own danger. τέ and καί join ὥσπερ 

owas ‘WII βουλόμενοι. τέ might have followed ὥσπῳ. 
ae. al bee Πελοποννησίων, cither because this is the more 
. + uie sentence, or because the writer may not have 
νος the clause καὶ βουλόμενοι ἅμα tO ὥσπερ ἤρξαντο, 
πὴ ar these words. Cp. note on i. 9. 2. δὲ 1. 1. ἀπο- 
ἀκ usw seen taken 2) with παρόντες, ‘coming to make the 
. Rat the infinitive after παρόντες cannot be de- 


ἐς tiudas Σπαρτιάτης, τῶν δὲ νεῶν Δεινιάδας περίοικος. 
cars to be no reason for translating, as in the Engtish 
she Chian Perioeci.’ For another example of the 
of the Lacedaemonian Perioeci in high places ep. c. 
. craedasuovios... κατάσκοπον ἐς τὴν Χίον πέμψαντες Φρῦνιν ἄνδρα 
εὐ τε νῆες αὐτοῖς εἰσὶν ὕσασπερ ἔλεγον, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἡ πόλις 


τον αν τὴν λεγομένην δόξαν. 


wae ‘ . oe a “ a . ΄ - - 
we σον ἀποστήσας καὶ πλίσας, καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ νεῶν 
“ Ἵ WEL ἐπὶ "A ὶ NI nG t γ a. 
ww tay παραπέμ ἐπὶ τὴν “Avticoay καὶ My@uprvar, ἄρχοντα 


. ΟῚ % - ® ~ - a 
cae πουσταξας καὶ αὐτὸς ταῖς τε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ νανσὶ καὶ ταῖς τρισὶ 


τὰκ ιν παρέπλει, ἐλπίζων τοὺς MuriAnvators κιτιλ, 


~ passage can hardly be defended as it siands in most of 
NESS. seg παρέπλει ἐπὶ τὴν ΓΛντισσαν καὶ Μήθυμναν i---rais τρισὶ 
Noa παρέπλει ἐπὶ τὴν Ἄντισσαν καὶ Μήθυμναν : the similarity of 
vy αὶ ἐπλίτας, the repetition of παρέπλει, and of ἐπὶ τὴν "Av- 
an Mr@epear after the second παρέπλει, and the absence of 


J emattuction for ὀπλίτας (to govern which, if we read πορέπλεις no 


NOTES, BOOK ΚΠ]. 473 


verb can be supplied from the context), indicate some corruption. 23. 4. 
One MS., the Vatican, has παραπέμπει (one inferior MS. παράπεμπε 
τῇ instead of παρέπλει, and omits the second ἐπὶ τὴν ΓΑντισσαν καὶ Μή- 
θυμναν : from this reading a fair sense may be elicited. ‘He in- 
stigated Eresus to revolt, and armed the inhabitants; then he sent 
by land the hoplites belonging to his own ships, under the com- 
mand of Eteonicus, to Antissa and Methymna, while he himself, 
with his own ships and the three Chian, sailed along the shore 
thither.’ παρέπλει corresponds to πεζῇ παραπέμπει, the movement of 
the Jand forces accompanying that of the ships. καί before τοὺς 
ἀπό marks the relation between the following and the preceding 
clause (τὴν Ἔρεσον ἀποστήσας), and also connects ὁπλίτας with ὁπλίσας. 


ws δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ ἐν τῇ Λέσβῳ πάντα ἡναντιοῦτο, ἀπέπλευσε τὸν ἑαυτοῦ 23. 5. 
στρατὸν ἀναλαβὼν ἐς τὴν Χίον. ἀπεκομίσθη δὲ πάλιν κατα πόλεις καὶ 
ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν welds, ὃς ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ἐμέλλησεν ἰέναι. 

1) ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν πεζός Seems to mean the troops of the Asiatic 
cities (c. 22 med., cp. 16 init.) which had marched along the coast 
in the direction of Clazomenae and Cymé in order to cooperate 
with the Chian fleet. But, in order to explain the words ἀπὸ τῶν 
νεῶν, We must assume that they had been afterwards taken on board 
the Chian fleet, carried to Lesbos, and there disembarked ; and that 
they were now conveyed home by Astyochus. 

On the other hand a) it is difficult to suppose that if these troops 
had been conveyed to Lesbos, the fact of their disembarkation 
would have been omitted. And δ) xara πόλεις would apply only to 
the forces from the Asiatic cities; there would be no mention of 
the Peloponnesians who accompanied them. 

2) The first objection may be removed if we take the words ὁ 
ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν πεζός as referring to the circumstance that the Pelopon- 
nesian troops had been disembarked from the ships of Chalcideus, 
and their place taken by Chians. For this fact has been mentioned, 
c. 17 init. But then the expression ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν πεζός Is incon- 
sistent with κατὰ πόλεις, For the forces of the Asiatic cities (to 
whom alone the latter words apply) were not taken from the 
ships of Chalcideus. 

Or once more, 3) ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν πεζός means the troops who may 


23. 


24. 


24. 2. 


24. 


24. 5. 


25. 


26. 


5. 


2. 


4. 


2. 


3. 


474 THUCYDIDES. 


have escaped from the Chian ships taken by the Athenians at 
Mitylene (c. 23 med.), and who are said to have been ‘about to 
proceed to the Hellespont’ (cp. c. 22 med.), in order to distinguish 
them from the forces of Astyochus. But still the expression is 
defective; and we hear nothing of the return of the Asiatic and 
Peloponnesian forces on the mainland. 


πόλεμον ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν ἐποιοῦντο. 


I. 6. made descents on the land and then returned to their ships. 


εἶχον δ᾽ ἐπιβάτας τῶν ὁπλιτῶν ἐκ καταλόγου ἀναγκαστούς. 

The ἐπιβάται were generally drawn from the fourth or lowest 
class of citizens, who were not regular hoplites ἐκ καταλόγου, but 
only armed for the time; cp. vi. 43 med. On this occasion the 
hoplites were compelled to serve owing to the exigency of the crisis. 


καὶ ὅσῳ ἐπεδίδου ἡ πόλις αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον, τόσῳ καὶ ἐκοσμοῦντο 
ἐχυρώτερον. 

‘In the same degree did they organize their state more securely.’ 
Cp. for the expression c. 72 fin. μένειν ἐν τῷ ὀλιγαρχικῷ κόσμῳ. 


μετὰ πολλῶν, ols ταὐτὰ ἔδοξε, ta τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ταχὺ ξυναιρεθήσεσθαι, 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ξυνέγνωσαν. 

τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, a cognate accusative after ξυνέγνωσαν, 1)* ‘they shared 
this error of judgment.’ Cp. vii. 73 init. of δὲ ξυνεγίγνωσκον μὲν καὶ 
αὐτοὶ οὐχ ἧσσον ταῦτα ἐκείνου. Or 2) ‘they, like the other allies, 
found out their mistake.’ 

ξυναιρεθήσεσθαι, ‘would be utterly overthrown.’ For the intensive 
force of ξυν- cp. note on ii. 41. 4. 


of pera Χαλκιδέως ἐλθόντες Πελοποννήσιοι. 

Probably not the crews, whom he had armed and left in Chios 
(c. 17 init.) where they reappear (ς. 32 init.), but the ἐπιβάται, or 
marines, of his five ships. 


᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ τούς τε Πελοποννησίους πρώτους νικήσαντες, καὶ tous BapBa- 
ρους καὶ τὸν ἄλλον ὄχλον ὠσάμενοι «.7.A, 


τὸν ἄλλον ὄχλον, the inferior part of the army, either light armed 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 475 


troops belonging to the Milesians, or the mercenaries of Tissa- 25. 3. 
phernes. 


ἐν τούτῳ δὲ περὶ δείλην ἤδη ὀψίαν ἀγγέλλεται αὐτοῖς τὰς ἀπὸ Πελοπον- 26. I. 
γήσου καὶ Σικελίας πέντε καὶ πεντήκοντα ναῦς ὅσον οὐ παρεῖναι. 

πέντε καὶ πεντήκοντα is not to be taken closely with the article. 
The meaning is, ‘the Peloponnesian and Sicilian fleet, which might 
have been expected, nuynbering fifty-five ships,’ i.e. twenty-two 
Sicilian and thirty-three Peloponnesian ships. Even thus ras has 
no definite antecedent, which can only be supplied in the most 
general sense from the context, the expression indicating the 
natural sequence of events in the writer’s mind rather than in the 
actual narrative. The number originally intended had been forty 
(c. 6): of these ten were to be supplied by the Lacedaemonians, 
but after the earthquake the ten were reduced to five; which were 
sent off with Chalcideus. Why the number here is thirty-three 
and not thirty we cannot tell. 


κατέπλευσαν ἐς A€poy πρῶτον τὴν πρὸ Μιλήτου νῆσον. 26. 1. 
Δέρον, the reading of the Vatican MS., instead of Ελεον, a name 
otherwise unknown, must here be read. It is confirmed by the 
words at the beginning of the following chapter, as ἀπὸ τῆς Λέρου 
ἐπύθετο, and by és τὸν ᾿Ιασικὴν κόλπον πλεύσαντες just below, for Leros 
lay opposite the mouth of the Gulf of Iasus. The objection that 
Leros is about forty miles distant from Miletus, and could hardly 
have been described as ἡ πρὸ Μιλήτου νῆσος, is sufficiently answered 
by referring to the general want of accuracy in Thucydides about 
places and distances. 


ὅπου γὰρ ἕξεστιν ἐν ὑστέρῳ, σαφῶς εἰδύτας πρὸς ὁπόσας τε vais πολε- BT. 2. 
μίας καὶ ὅσαις πρὸς αὐτὰς ταῖς σφετέραις, ἱκανῶς καὶ καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν παρασκευ- 
ασαμένοις ἔσται ἀγωνίσασθαι, οὐδέποτε τῷ αἰσχρῷ ὀνείδει εἴξας ἀλόγως 
διακινδυνεύσειν. 

The simplest way of explaining this passage, in which there is 
no material variation of the MSS., is to suppose that ἔξεστιν is for- 
gotten in consequence of the length of the sentence, and has been 
repeated in ἔσται. For the repetition cp. note on v. 22, 2. τῷ 


27. 2. 


27. 3. 


27. 3 


27. 5. 


476 THUCYDIDES. 


αἰσχρῷ ὀνείδει, ‘the discreditable reproach, of which the other 
generals seemed to be afraid. 


οὐ γὰρ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι ᾿Αθηναίους ναυτικῷ μετὰ καιροῦ ὑποχωρῆσαι, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ μετὰ ὁτουοῦν τρόπου αἴσχιον ξυμβήσεσθαι ἣν ἡσσηθῶσι. 

μετὰ ὁτουοῦν τρόπου answers to μετὰ καιροῦ, ‘when circumstances 
required,’ and ‘ under any circumstances.’ 

αἴσχιον, a resolved comparative ; not ‘more base,’ but ‘base 
rather.’ See note on ii. 40. 1. 


καὶ τὴν πόλιν οὐ μόνον τῷ αἰσχρῷ ἀλλὰ Kal τῷ μεγίστῳ κινδύνῳ περιπίπ- 
τειν, 9 μόλις ἐπὶ ταῖς γεγενημέναις ξυμφοραῖς ἐνδέχεσθαι μετὰ βεβαίου 
παρασκευῆς καθ᾽ ἑκουσίαν, ἣ πάνυ γε ἀνάγκῃ, προτέρᾳ ποι ἐπιχειρεῖν, ποῦ 
δὴ μὴ βιαζομένῃ γε πρὸς αὐθαιρέτους κινδύνους ἰέναι ; 

i) πάνν γε ἀνάγκῃ, 1)* ‘the state, even if she had a sufficient force, 
should hardly take the aggressive voluntarily,’ but then, as if this 
statement were too strong, a correction is made, ‘or only from 
absolute necessity,’ i.e. ‘and should only do so at all from absolute 
necessity.’ The correction is itself slightly incorrect, for in the 
alternative we have to omit the words pera βεβαίου παρασκενῆς and 
καθ᾽ éxovciay, 

Or 2) repeating the words μετὰ βεβαίου παρασκενῆς, but not καθ᾽ 
ἑκουσίαν, With ἢ πάνυ ye ἀνάγκῃ (the expression being still somewhat 
incorrect), ‘even with a sufficient force’ (which they had not) ‘ they 
could only venture to fight when absolutely compelled ;’ ἢ πάνυ ye 
ἀνάγκῃ, ‘or only when compelled,’ =‘ but only when compelled.’ 

ποῦ has the sense of mas. Cp. Soph. Aj. 1100,— 

ποῦ σὺ στρατηγεῖς τοῦδε; 
Herod. ii. 11, κοῦ γε δή, ἐν τῷ προαναισιμωμένῳ χρόνῳ πρότερον ἣ ἐμὲ 
γενέσθαι, οὐκ ἂν χωσθεΐη κόλπος καὶ πολλῷ μέζων ἔτι τούτου ὑπὸ τοσούτον 
τε ποταμοῦ καὶ οὕτως ἐργατικοῦ; where the reading has been un- 
necessarily changed into ἦ κου as here into # που. 

Lindau’s emendation 4 που, adopted by Stahl and Classen, rests 
on what may be called the fallacy of parallel passages : 1. 142 init. 
and vi. 37 fin. For there is no reason why Thucydides should 
have written in one passage as he had written in another. 


3 3 “- ’ ζω a 
καὶ ἔδοξεν οὐκ ἐν τῷ αὐτίκα μᾶλλον ἢ ὕστερον, οὐκ ἐς τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλὰ 


s »’᾿ w ᾽ . "» ’ 4 
καὶ ἐς ὑσα ἴλλα Φρύνιχος κατέστη, οὐκ ἀξύνετος εἶναι. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 477 


Thucydides here passes a judgment on the political life of 27. 5. 
Phrynichus, including his future career as a leading member of the 
400 (οὐκ ἐν τῷ αὐτίκα μᾶλλον ἣ ὕστερον, Cp. c. 68 fin.), similar to that 
which he elsewhere pronounces upon Antiphon (c. 68 init.) 


καὶ μείναντες ἡμέραν μίαν, τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ καὶ τὰς Xias vais προσλαβόντες 28. 1. 
τὰς μετὰ Χαλκιδέως τὸ πρῶτον ξυγκαταδιωχθείσας, ἐβούλοντο πλεῦσαι ἐπὶ 
τὰ σκεύη, ἃ ἐξείλοντο, ἐς Τειχιοῦσσαν πάλιν. 

τὰς μετὰ Χαλκιδέως. The ships which had been chased by 
Strombichides into Miletus, c. 17 fin. ra σκεύη ἃ ἐξείλοντο, i.e. the 
superfluous sails and tackle, which had been taken out in pre- 
paration for a sea-fight. Cp. Xen. Hell. i. 1. 13, ᾿Αλκιβιάδης δέ, 
εἰπὼν καὶ τούτοις διώκειν αὐτόν, ἐξελομένοις τὰ μεγάλα ἱστία, αὐτὸς ἔπ- 
λευσεν ἐς Πάριον : νὶ. 2, 21, τὰ μεγάλα ἱστία αὐτοῦ κατελιπεν, ὡς ἐπὶ 


‘ λ ’ 
ναυμαχιαν πλεων. 


πείθει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ "lacov, ἐν 7) ᾿Αμόργης πολέμιος ὧν κατεῖχε, πλεῦσα. 843. 2. 
κατεῖχε, Neuter, a stronger form of εἶχε, ‘maintained himself.’ 
Cp. note on viii. 100. 2. 


ἐπειδὴ THY ἼἼασον κατεστήσατο ὁ Τισσαφέρνης ἐς φυλακήν. 29. I. 
‘When he had set a guard in Iasus,’ lit. ‘ when he had reduced 

Iasus into the condition of being guarded,’ like ἐς ἀπορίαν, és ὀλιγαρ- 

χίαν καθιστάναι. Cp. viii. 1 fin. ra τῶν ξυμμάχων ἐς ἐσφάλειαν ποιεῖσθαι. 


ὅμως δὲ παρὰ πέντε ναῦς πλέον ἀνδρὶ ἑκάστῳ ἣ τρεῖς ὀβολοὶ ὡμολογή- 29. 2. 
θησαν. ἐς γὰρ πέντε ναῦς καὶ πεντήκοντα τρία τάλαντα ἐδίδου τοῦ μηνός" 
καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσῳ πλείους νῆες ἦσαν τούτου τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν 
λόγον τοῦτον ἐδίδοτο. 

1)" παρὰ πέντε vais, ‘for every five ships,’ lit. ‘along with every 
five ships,’ this being the unit of measurement. It may be asked; 
why should the rate of pay be reckoned by five ships rather than by 
any other number ?: The answer is, because the pay of this number 
of ships happened to give the lowest sum in talents. 3 talents= 
108,000 obols, which divided by 1000 (5 x 200, the crew of each 
ship being taken at 200), gives 108 obols as the pay of each man 
per month and 3% obols as his pay per day. 

For the number 200 cp. vi. 8 init. ἄγοντες ἑξήκοντα τάλαντα donpov 


29. 2. 


478 THUCYDIDES. ‘ 


ἀργυρίου ὡς ἐς ἑξήκοντα vais μηνὸς μισθόν, where, if the crews be=== 
reckoned at 200 men, the pay offered will be a drachma per day, 5» 

as in iii. 17, viii. 29 init. Cp. also Herod. vii. 184.1 Gn O——— 
calculation of the numbers of Xerxes’ army), ὡς ἀνὰ διηκοσίους ἄνδραςσα» -Ξππαπας 
λογιζομένοισι ἐν ἑκάστῃ νηΐ : Vill. 17, ᾿Αθηναίων KAewins ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδεω,ε. “πεαπααπαι. 
ὃς δαπάνην οἰκηΐην παρεχόμενος ἐστρατεύετο ἀνδράσι τε διηκοσίοισι cam ee ταὶ 
οἰκηΐη mi. A like result follows from Xen. Hell. i. 5. 4-7, where 30> = 
minae a month to each ship=3 obols a day to each man. 

The words παρὰ πέντε vais are out of place with πλέον ἀνδρὶ ἐκάστῳκαε- ρει ET 
ὡμολογήθησαν, and would go better with the next sentence after rpiaax— = «9 
τάλαντα. Thucydides has not clearly separated the two facts—e) ==—==— 
that three talents instead of two and a half talents were given for—am «-3» 
every five ships, and 4) that the bounty extended at first to fifty——— ““#-! 
five ships, that being the number of the Peloponnesian and Sicilian._ ‘= = 
fleet then at Miletus, not reckoning the ships at Chios (viii. 23. 865: =. 
init., fin.), and the other fleet of twenty-five at Miletus, i.e. twenty ——~& ἢ 
Chian ships, and five Lacedaemonian ships manned by Chians == “48 
(viii. 12 fin. and 17 init.). 


καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις κτὰ. The bounty was to be further extended Ἐ πὶ 
in the same ratio to additional ships. Probably the Chians are Ξε: 
not included in the convention; since they beset Tissaphernes on = 


their own account, c. 45 med. 

2) The conjecture of Madvig (originally Meibomius), τριάκοντα for 
τρία, which is omittcd by the Vat., is ingenious and the change slight 
(A’ for Γ. ‘ Nevertheless it was agreed that more than three obols, 
by five ships, should be given to each man. For, to fifty-five ships, 
thirty talents a month were to be given.’ Two-and-a-half talents, 
i.e. five ships’ pay, more than the regular pay of the ‘fleet, which 
would have been half a talent a ship, were to be given to the whole 
flect of fifty-five, or a little more than three obols a day to each 
man. παρὰ πέντε vats will then retain its usual meaning, ‘ by five 
ships,’ like mapa πολύ, παρ᾽ ὀλιγόν : fifty-five ships were paid as if 
they had been sixty. But the addition thus made to the pay, 
one-eleventh of three obols, or about a farthing, is slight, and, 
though the sense given to παρά is more natural, the words παρὰ 
πέντε ναῦς, Which refer to the whole fleet, are still incongruous with 


’ .Y € a 
ἀνδρὶ ἑκάστῳ. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 479 


τοῦ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ χειμῶνος τοῖς ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ ᾿Αθηναίοις, προσαφιγμέναι yap 80. I. 
ἦσαν καὶ οἴκοθεν ἄλλαι νῆες πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ στρατηγοὶ Χαρμῖνος καὶ 
Στρομβιχίδης καὶ Εὐκτήμων, καὶ τὰς ἀπὸ Χίον καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πάσας ξυναγα- 
γόντες ἐβούλοντο διακληρωσάμενοι ἐπὶ μὲν τῇ Μιλήτῳ τῷ ναυτικῷ ἐφορ- 
μεῖν κιτὰλ. 

The dative τοῖς ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ ᾿Αθηναίοις implies that ἔδοξεν ἐφορμεῖν is 
to follow, but in the process of writing the construction is changed 
to ἐβούλοντο, and the dative is left to be supported by προσαφιγμέναι 
yap ἦσαν only. 


ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Αστύοχος ὡς τότε ἐν τῇ Χίῳ ἔτυχε διὰ Thy προδοσίαν τοὺς ὁμήρους BL. 1. 
καταλεγόμενος K.T.A, 

διὰ τὴν προδοσίαν, ‘with a view to,’ i.e. ‘in order to prevent, the 
intended betrayal of the island.’ 


λαβὼν τάς re τῶν Κορινθίων (vais) πέντε. 33. 1. 
‘The Corinthian ships, being five.’ The Corinthian ships have 
been mentioned before (c. 23 fin., cp. c. 32 init.), but not their 
number. 


οἱ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς Σάμου ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἐπὶ τὴν Χίον πλέοντες τῇ στρατιᾷ, καὶ 33. 2. 
αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα λόφου διείργοντο καὶ καθωρμίσαντο, καὶ ἐλελήθεσαν 
ἀλλήλους. 

Two disparate ideas are here united by καί before καθωρμίσαντο. 
‘The Athenians were only separated from the Peloponnesians by 
being on the other side of a hill, and,’ or, as we should say, 
‘when, they put in, and neither had been observed by the other.’ 
ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα λόφου, scil. dvres: or dependent on καθωρμίσαντο, 
διείργοντο being in that case thrown in by the way. 

καὶ αὐτοί, ‘they too moored their ships close to Corycus.’ 

The genitive λόφου is to be taken after the pleonastic expression 
ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα. Cp. vii. 37 med. καὶ of ἱππῆς καὶ ἡ γυμνητεία τῶν 
Συρακοσίων ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα mpooje: τῷ τείχει. 


ὡς εὗρον ἅπαν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκ τῆς Σάμον προφασισθέν. 33. 4. 

These Erythraeans appear to have been taken prisoners by the 
Athenians and to have been liberated by them on condition of 
drawing over Erythrae to the Athenian alliance. Cp. the case of 


33. 4. 


34. I. 


36. 


I. 


480 THUCYDIDES. 


Corcyra, iii. 70 init. The escaped prisoners succeeded in satisfyin_ ss 
the Lacedaemonians that they were only practising upon Atheniasame™ 
credulity. 


ἐν τούτῳ δὲ καὶ ἡ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων στρατιὰ ταῖς ναυσὶν ἐκ τοῦ Keptxoam—am 
περιπλέουσα κατ᾽ ᾿Αργῖνον ἐπιτυγχάνει τρισὶ ναυσὶ τῶν Χίων μακραῖς" cogent 
ὡς εἶδον, ἐπεδίωκον. 

ἐκ τοῦ Κωρύκου, 1)* i.e. sailing round Corycus from their station: ««<—N0 
on the south side of it, and making for the promontory o ««—=» of 
Arginus, southward from the town of Chios, on the opposite coasts <= -st. 
Cp. iv. 25. 8 and note, τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ ταῖς μὲν ναυσὶ περιπλεύσαντε == —ETES 
κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ακεσίνην ποταμὸν τὴν γῆν edjovv. Or 2) κατ᾽ ᾿Αργῖνον may ὑὕσππιιι.»«--Ξ be 
taken with ἐπιτυγχάνει, not with περιπλέουσα. 

ὡς εἶδον, ἐπεδίωκον. No good meaning can be given to ὥσπερ i8tere «- ame 


Ss. 
(or ὥσπερ ἰδόντες αὐτὰς) ἐπεδίωκον, which is the reading of allthe MSS. - = a 
but one. It is better therefore to adopt ὡς εἶδον from the Vatican, - 
which reads ὡς εἶδον ἐδίωκον, retaining ἐπεδίωκον from the other MSS. “ 
ἡ δ᾽ ἀφειστήκει ἤδη ἀπὸ Τισσαφέρνους. - 
1) ‘Had revolted from Tissaphernes.’ Cp. c. 109 init. αἰσθό- « 


μενος καὶ τοῦτο τῶν Πελοποννησίων τὸ ἔργον, καὶ οὐ μόνον τὸ ἐν Μιλήτῳ 
καὶ Κνίδῳ (καὶ ἐνταῦθα γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐξεπεπτώκεσαν οἱ dpovpoi)—where 
the garrison of Tissaphernes is said to have been driven, with the 
connivance of the Peloponnesians, out of Cnidus; also viii. 41 
med. 2)* ἀπό has been altered (by Palmer) into ὑπό, ‘the 
Cnidians had revolted at the instigation of Tissaphernes.’ For 
Thucydides has not as yet mentioned the revolt of Cnidus from 
Athens, of which we know from the tribute lists that it was a sub- 
ject, and the revolt of Cnidus from Tissaphernes is referred to as 
if for the first time in the passage just quoted, 109 init. But a) we 
necd not suppose that in describing the general defection of the 
Jonian cities from Athens, Thucydides has mentioned every case, 
and 4) the revolt from Tissaphernes implies a previous revolt from 
Athens: c) ἀφειστήκει uscd absolutely is here obscure. d@) The 
Cnidians only did what the Milesians and Adramyttians after- 
wards did, c. 84 med. and c. 108: they remained allies of the 
Peloponnesians while they separated from Tissaphernes, who was 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 481 


-heir somewhat treacherous ally. And e) the coincidence of the 86. 1. 
words of this passage with the fact mentioned in c. 109 is, to say 

he least, striking. On the whole, therefore, it seems more prob- 

able that in c. 109 Thucydides (who uses the pluperfect, ἐξεπεπτώ- 
xegay) is referring to an event which had happened some time 
before, and is alluded to here. Cp. Kriiger, Studien, ii. p. 197. 


ξυνθῆκαι Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων πρὸς βασιλέα Δαρεῖον καὶ τοὺς 87. 1. . 
“παῖδας τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ Τισσαφέρνην. 

The ‘sons of the King’ are Artaxerxes and Cyrus, who were at 
this time young men of about twenty. 

Both treaties show an almost brutal disregard of great Hellenic 
interests, cp.c. 43. The first treaty (c. 18) professed to surrender 
to the King all that had ever belonged to him and to his ancestors. 
In the second treaty it is only said ‘that neither the Lacedaemo- 
nians nor their allies shall attack or demand tribute of any country 
which has ever belonged to the King or to his ancestors.’ And 
they are no longer bound to prevent the King’s subjects from 
Tevolting. 


καὶ ἣν τις τῶν ἐν τῇ βασιλέως χώρᾳ ἢ ὅσης βασιλεὺς ἄρχει ἐπὶ τὴν 87. 5. 
Λακεδαιμονίων in ἣ τῶν ξυμμάχων, βασιλεὺς κωλυέτω καὶ ἀμυνέτω κατὰ τὸ 
δυνατόν. 

If the expression is not the mere pleonasm of an official docu- 
Ment, τῇ βασιλέως χώρᾳ may signify the country which was more 
listinctly under the King’s rule; ὅσης βασιλεὺς ἄρχει, that over which 
xe claimed authority, e. g. the Greek cities of Asia Minor. 


pera δὲ ταύτας ras ξυνθήκας Θηραμένης μὲν παραδοὺς ᾿Αστυόχῳ τὰς vais 38, 1. 
ἔποπλέων ἐν κέλητι ἀφανίζεται. 

ἀφανίζεται, ‘he disappeared,’ as in Xenophon, Hell i. 6. 33, 
KadXsxparidas ἐμβαλούσης τῆς νεὼς ἀποπεσὼν és τὴν θάλατταν ἠφανίσθη. 
He attempted to cross the Aegean in a small boat, and was prob- 
ably lost at sea. At any rate no one knew what became of him. 
This explanation is far more likely than the suggestion of Dr. 
Arnold, that for good reasons Theramenes ‘went off in the course 
of his voyage home.’ 

VOL. IL Hi 


482 THUCYDIDES. 


40. 2. οἱ yap οἰκέται τοῖς Χίοις πολλοὶ ὄντες καὶ μιᾷ ye πόλει πλὴν AaxeBacgac 
νίων πλεῖστοι γενόμενοι K.T.A. 
It has been questioned whether the slaves in Chios could ἢ Ξεβινε 
been more numerous than those in Attica. Relatively to the 
number of freemen they may have been, and probably Thucydm <des 


has not distinguished clearly between their relative and abso Mute 
number. . 


40.3. ἔφασαν οὖν χρῆναι of Χίοι, ἕως ἔτι ἐλπὶς καὶ δυνατὸν κωλῦσαι, Tenge bo 
μένου τοῦ Δελφινίου καὶ ἀτελοῦς ὄντος, καὶ στρατοπέδῳ καὶ ναυσὶν epip-e aT 
μείζονος προσπεριβαλλομένου, βοηθῆσαι σφίσιν. 

The present participle gives the notion of incompleteness, tye Ine 
the fortification of Delphinium and the extension of the Ather= #22 
lines were in progress, is another way of saying ‘ before they ver == 


completed.’ 
προσ- in προσπεριβαλλομένου repeats μείζονος, ‘a larger’ or ‘hig a 
fortification being drawn round the camp and fleet in additiox? to 


what there was before.’ 


42.3. μέχρι ov ἐπεφάνησαν αὐτοῖς παρὰ δόξαν al πλείους τῶν νεῶν καὶ nore, 
4. χόθεν ἀπεκλήοντο. ἔπειτα δὲ ἐς φυγὴν καταστάντες, ἐξ μὲν vais ἀπολλύ-- 
ασι x.T.X. 
The misfortune of Charminus is ridiculed by Aristophanes, 
Thesm. (acted in the following year 411, or in 410), 801,— 
βάσανον δῶμεν, πότεροι χείρους. ἡμεῖς μὲν yap φαμεν ὑμᾶς, 


ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἡμᾶς. σκεψώμεθα δή, κἀντιτιθῶμεν πρὸς ἕκαστον, 


Am 


παραβάλλουσαι τῆς τε γυναικὸς καὶ τἀνδρὸς τοὔνομ᾽ ἕκαστον. 
Ναυσιμάχης μέν γ᾽ ἥττων ἐστὶν Xappivos’ δῆλα δὲ τἄργα. 
ΦΦ 
48. 3. ἐνῆν γὰρ καὶ νήσους ἁπάσας πάλιν δουλεύειν καὶ Θεσσαλίαν καὶ Λοκροὺς 
καὶ τὰ μέχρι Βοιωτῶν. 
ἐνῆν, not literally, ‘was contained,’ but, ‘was involved’ in the 
treaties. The sentence may be 1) a reflection of Thucydides; 
2)* part of the words of Lichas, the mood being changed for the 
sake of variety : cp. note on viii. 76. 5. There is no incongruity, 
as Classen supposes, in Lichas urging this argument on the Persian 
satrap, though it was very likely to arouse his wrath. Bekker and 
Arnold unnecessarily alter ἐνῆν into ἐνεῖναι. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 4834 


οἱ δ᾽ ἐς τὴν Ῥόδον, ἐπικηρυκευομένων ἀπὸ τῶν δυνατωτάτων ἀνδρῶν, τὴν 44. 1. 
γνώμην εἶχον πλεῖν. 

1) ἐπικηρυκευομένων (scil. τινῶν) ἀπὸ τῶν κιτιλ., ‘some of the most 
powerful men making proposals to them.’ Or 2) ἐπικηρυκενομένων 
may be taken as an impersonal passive, like ἐσαγγελθέντων, i. 116 fin. 


A summary of the rather complicated events which followed 
upon the renewal of the war in Hellas may assist the reader in 
threading his way through the narrative. 

Twenty-one Peloponnesian ships are blockaded in Piraeum. Ist pe- 
But Chalcideus and Alcibiades cross the Aegean with five ships, 10-21; 
and induce first Chios, and then Miletus, to revolt. Strombichides of 412. 
and Thrasycles, with small squadrons from Athens, pursue them 
to Miletus, but arrive too late, and take up their station at Lade. 

Diomedon brings up sixteen ships from Athens, Chalcideus at 
Miletus concludes the first treaty with Persia. The fleet blockaded 
in Piraeum gets away to Cenchreae. The Samians establish a 
democracy. 

A Chian fleet, followed by a small squadron under Astyochus, 2nd pe- 
the new Spartan admiral, who has just arrived from Cenchreae, noe 38 Ν 
tries to gain over Lesbos. The attempt is frustrated by the energy wate 
of Diomedon and Leon (who has just brought ten more ships 
from Athens). The two admirals now make descents upon Chios 
and reduce the inhabitants to great extremities. 

The Athenians at Ladé make a descent upon Miletus; Chalcideus 
is killed. Phrynichus and two others arrive with forty-eight ships 
and a large army from Athens, defeat the Milesians, and are about 
to blockade the city, when the approach of fifty-five Peloponnesian 
and Sicilian ships is announced, and the Athenians retire to Samos. 
—The Peloponnesian fleet, which had been entrusted to Thera- 
menes, until it could be handed over to Astyochus, takes Iasus, 

The Peloponnesians now remain at Miletus, when they come to 8rd pe 
an agreement with Tissaphernes about their pay. Thirty-five nod ΤῊΝ 
Athenian ships arrive at Samos. A muster of the fleet takes place, winter of 
and thirty ships are sent northward against Chios ; seventy-four 
remain at Samos. Meanwhile Astyochus, after an unsuccessful 
expedition against Clazomenae, departs for Miletus in order to 

1i2 


4th pe- 
riod, cc. 


39-44 ; 
winter of Peloponnesian ships under Antisthenes, intended ultimately to 


412-411. 


45. 2. 


48. 


2. 


484 THUCYDIDES. 


assume command of the whole fleet, Pedaritus having come from 
Miletus to take his place in Chios. Before his departure he 
quarrels with Pedaritus and the Chians, who refuse to aid him 
in a second attempt to raise a revolt in Lesbos. On his voyage 
he narrowly escapes an encounter with the thirty Athenian ships 
sailing to Chios. Pedaritus writes home to complain of him. 

The Athenian fleet from Samos captures six newly-arrived ships 
of the enemy, but is foiled in an attempt upon Cnidus, which has 
revolted. The Peloponnesians at Miletus conclude a second 
treaty with Tissaphernes. Theramenes disappears. Astyochus 
obstinately refuses to aid the Chians. 

Astyochus is at length induced to relieve Chios. When about 
to proceed thither, he hears of the approach of twenty-seven 


assist Pharnabazus at the Hellespont, and conveying Lichas and 
ten other commissioners, who are to report upon his own conduct. 
He sails southward to meet them: Charminus, one of the Athenian 
commanders from Samos, who is likewise on the look out for the 
expected fleet, encounters Astyochus in the fog, and is routed. 
Astyochus and Antisthenes put into Cnidus, where Lichas de- 
nounces the treaties with Persia and quarrels with Tissaphernes. 
The Peloponnesians sail to Rhodes, which revolts from Athens; 
they there remain inactive for eleven weeks. 


καὶ διδάσκαλος πάντων γιγνόμενος τήν re μισθοφορὰν ξυνέτεμεν, ἀντὶ 
δραχμῆς ᾿Αττικῆς Gore τριώβολον, καὶ τοῦτο μὴ ξυνεχῶς, δίδοσθαι, λέγειν 
κελεύων τὸν Τισσαφέρνην πρὸς αὐτούς, ὡς ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐκ πλείονος χρόνου ἐπι- 
στήμονες ὄντες τοῦ ναυτικοῦ τριώβολον τοῖς ἑαυτῶν διδόασιν, οὐ τοσοῦτον 
πενίᾳ, ὅσον ἵνα αὐτῶν μὴ οἱ ναῦται, ἐκ περιουσίας ὑβρίζοντες, οἱ μὲν τὰ 
σώματα χείρω ἔχωσι, δαπανῶντες ἐς τοιαῦτα ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ ἀσθένεια ξυμβαίνει, ot 
δὲ τὰς ναῦς ἀπολείπωσιν [οὐχ] ὑπολιπόντες ἐς ὁμηρείαν τὸν προσοφειλ- 
όμενον μισθόν. 

ἀπολείπωσιν οὐχ ὑπολιπόντες is the reading of Vat. only. Ven. 
reads ἀπολείπωσιν ὑπολείποντε. Two good (It. Cl.) and one bad 
MS. (Lugd.) show traces of a similar reading in the margin. All 
the rest read ἀπολιπόντες alone. 

1) Arnold translates (omitting οὐκ), ‘lest others of the seamen 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 485 


should leave their ships, leaving behind them their arrears of pay 
as a pledge:’ that is to say, the trierarchs would be more willing 
to grant leave of absence and connive at irregularity generally when 
the pay was high; because the sailors who were receiving the higher 
pay would be less likely to desert. But this is far-fetched, and 
the words rds vais ἀπολείπωσιν would naturally mean ‘ desert ’ rather 
than ‘ leave their ships for a time.’ . 

2)* The rendering in the English text, partly taken from Poppo, 
notwithstanding some difficulties of language, is preferable. ‘And 
the pay was given irregularly, that the men, leaving behind them 
their arrears of pay as a pledge, might not desert,’ i.e. might not 
desert because they would lose their arrears of pay: οὐκ being 
omitted and ἀπολείπωσιν closely connected with the preceding μή. 

If οὐκ be read we must translate, giving the same sense, ‘ that the 
men might not desert because they did not leave behind them their 
arrears of pay as a pledge:’ οὐ, not μή; ‘because,’ not ‘if.’ οὐχ 
ὑπολίποντες must be taken closely with ἀπολείπωσιν, and, like the 
part. δαπανῶντες in the clause above, comes under the influence of 
the preceding μή. 

καὶ τοῦτο οὐ ξυνεχῶς is understood, though not repeated, after 
διδόασιν. It is not necessary to suppose that Alcibiades told Tissa- 
phernes the exact truth. But that the practice of keeping back 
part of the pay prevailed not long afterwards in the Athenian army 
is stated by Polyaen. Strateg. iii. 9. 51, Ἰφικράτης ἦρξε τοῦ πλείστου 
στρατεύματος πεζοῦ καὶ ναντικοῦ, ἐν τῇ δόσει τοῦ μισθοῦ, caf ἕκαστον 
μῆνα ὑφαιρῶν τὸ τέταρτον μέρος, ὥσπερ ἐνέχυρον ἑκάστου κατέχων, iva μὴ 
λίποιεν τὸ στρατόπεδον. 

Though the general meaning of the passage is clear, two dif-. 
ferent points of view are slightly confused. 4) the money is a 
pledge that the sailors will not desert: δ) if they do desert they 
will forfeit it. These two are brought together in one sentence. 
‘The pay which was due to them was a pledge that they would 
‘not desert; for they would leave it behind them if they did so.’ 


τούτων δὲ Ἑρμοκράτης [re] ἠναντιοῦτο μόνος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ξύμπαντος ξυμμα- 46, 3. 
χικοῦ. τάς τε πόλεις δεομένας χρημάτων ἀπήλασεν αὐτὸς ἀντιλέγων ὑπὲρ 


a 9 € e ‘ - 3 ’ φ 
τοῦ Τισσαφέρνους ὡς οἱ μὲν Xioe ἀναίσχυντοι εἰεν κιτιλ. 


45. 3. 


46. 1. 


46. 


46. 


2. 


3. 


486 THUCYDIDES. 


τέ after ‘Eppoxpdms, although found in every MS. but one, the 
Vatican, has to be explained by a four de force. ‘ Hermocrates was 
the only person who spoke on behalf of the confederacy, and 
Alcibiades, speaking on behalf of Tissaphernes, drove away the 
petitioners who came to him from the revolted cities.” In other 
words, ‘Hermocrates stood alone, and the representatives of the 
cities were easily disposed of by Alcibiades.’ Cp. note on 
i. 9. 3 ad fin. But the transition from Hermocrates to Alcibiades 
is very harsh. τέ is better omitted. The words τούτων δὲ... . ξυμ- 
μαχικοῦ are thus a parenthesis, and the clause rds τέ πόλεις κιτλ. 
follows regularly after ἐδίδασκεν. 


καὶ βασιλεῖ ἐξεῖναι ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς αὑτοῦ λυπηροὺς τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐπάγειν. 

Four good MSS. and a few others read αὐτοῦ, the rest αὐτούς. 
Aumnpous, like κακοῦργος in Xenophon, Mem. i. 5. 3, κακοῦργος μὲν 
τῶν ἄλλων, quoted by Arnold, and dvopems in Hell. v. 2. 33, τοῖς 
ὑμετέροις δυσμενέσι, quoted by Bohme, appears to be used as a sub- 
stantive. 


ἣν μὴ αὐτὸς βούληται μεγάλῃ δαπάνῃ καὶ κινδύνῳ ἀναστάς more διαγω- 
νίσασθαι. εὐτελέστερα δὲ τὰ δεινά, βραχεῖ μορίῳ τῆς δαπάνης, καὶ ἅμα 
μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἀσφαλείας, αὐτοὺς περὶ ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς Ἕλληνας κατατρῖψαι. 

βραχεῖ μορίῳ τῆς δαπάνης is Opposed to μεγάλῃ δαπάνῃ in the pre- 
ceding sentence, aS μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἀσφαλείας is to κινδύνῳ: βραχεῖ 
μορίῳ... . κατατρῖψαι is in apposition with ra δεινά, ‘the danger would 
be less costly if he were to wear out the Greeks against one 
another,’ lit. ‘the danger of wearing out, etc. would be cheaper.’ 

The expression εὐτελέστερα τὰ Sewd,... κατατρῖψαι, though some- 
what harsh, is in the manner of Thucydides: and the ingenious 
correction τάδ᾽ εἶναι for ra δεινά, which seems to have occurred inde- 
pendently to Madvig, Classen, and Stahl, is therefore unnecessary. 


τὸν λόγον re ξυμφορώτατον καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἔχοντας πολεμεῖν. τοὺς μὲν yap 
ξυγκαταδουλοῦν ἂν σφίσι τε αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης μέρος καὶ ἐκείνῳ ὅσοι 
ἐν τῇ βασιλέως Ἕλληνες οἰκοῦσι, τοὺς δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐλευθερώσοντας ἥκειν. 
καὶ οὐκ εἰκὸς εἶναι Λακεδαιμονίους ἀπὸ μὲν σφῶν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθεροῦν 
νῦν τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἐκείνων τῶν βαρβάρων, ἣν μή ποτε αὐτοὺς μὴ 


ἐξέλωσι, μὴ ἐλευθερῶσαι. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 487 


τὸν λόγον κατὰ. ‘Both the principles on which they went to war, 46. 3. 
and their practice in the war itself, were most suitable to the in- 
terests of the King.’ 

ξυγκαταδουλοῦν, either 1)* ‘they would unite with the King in 
subjecting,’ or 2) ‘they would subject, at the same time, the sea to 
themselves, and the Hellenes who dwelt in his country to him?’ 
ξυν- thus referring to the object, not to the subject, of the verb. 
The adverbial use of the preposition in composition is singular, 
but gives a more forcible sense. 

1)* σφῶν is used after Λακεδαιμονίους because ᾿Ἑλλήνων includes 
both themselves and the Athenians. Or 2) σφῶν may refer to the 
Athenians as the countrymen of Alcibiades, who is the speaker. 

ἣν μή ποτε αὐτοὺς μὴ ἐξέλωσι. The reading of the MSS., though 
obscure, is not indefensible. ‘Thucydides means that the Lacedae- 
monians would certainly liberate the Hellenic subjects of the king, 
except in one case; i.e. 1)* unless they were prevented from getting 
the Athenians out of the way. Or translating the two negatives 
into an affirmative, ‘If they got the Athenians out of the way.’ 
The double μή is accounted for; as Béhme remarks, by the nega- 
tive form of the whole sentence: ‘It was not likely that the Lace- 
daemonians would abstain from freeing the subjects of the King 
unless they failed to overthrow the Athenians,’=‘ the Lacedaemo-. 
nians would certainly free the subjects of the King if ever they 
succeeded in overthrowing the Athenians.’ 2) μὴ ἐξέλωσι may also 
be referred to the Persians, ‘unless the Persians allowed the 
Athenians to remain:’ μὴ ἐξέλωσιτε ἃ positive idea, διασώσωσι. 

πότε really qualifies, not the clause as it stands, but the affirma- 
tive idea contained in the clause: 1) ‘if ever the Lacedaemonians 
destroyed Athens,’ or 2) ‘if ever the Persians left Athens to its 
fate.’ For the reduplicated negative cp. ii. 13 init. μὴ πολλάκις... 
τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ παραλίπῃ καὶ μὴ δῃηώσῃ : Lycurg. c. Leocr. 144, εἰ μὴ 
γὴ Δία μὴ ταὐτὰ τῇ πατρίδι καὶ τούτοις ἐστὶ συμφέροντα. 

Once more 3) αὐτούς may be referred to the Lacedaemonians. 
The two pn’s may strengthen instead of cancelling each other 
(Hermann). ‘Unless they, the Persians, got them out of the way.’ 
This rendering agrees with the words which follow: ἔπειτ᾽ ἤδη τοὺς 
Πελοποννησίους ἀπαλλάξαι ἐκ τῆς χώρας, 


4θ. 3. 


47.1. 


47. 2. 


488 THUCYDIDES. 


ἐλευθερῶσαι. The aorist, according to Classen, distinguishes the. 
particular case from the general policy of the Lacedaemonians, 
ἔλευθεροῦν. But it may also be ascribed to the desire of avoiding 
the repetition of exactly the same word: cp. note on vi. 23. 3. 


ὁ δὲ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης ταῦτα ἅμα μὲν rp Τισσαφέρνει καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ, ὧν παρ᾽ 
ἐκείνοις, ἄριστα εἶναι νομίζων παρήνει κιτιλ. 

One bad MS. (Mosqu.) omits τῷ before βασιλεῖ. That the article 
is not always omitted with βασιλεύς when the Great King is referred 
to is shown by c. 87 init., 48 med., and by passages in Xenophon 
and the Orators quoted by Poppo on c. 37. 2. Cp. θεός and 
ὁ θεός. 

ὧν παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις, ‘being now on their side,’ or ‘under their pro- 
tection,’ not to be taken locally in reference to the King any more 
than the advice of Alcibiades was literally given to the King. 


ἐπειδὴ yap ἥσθοντο αὐτὸν ἰσχύοντα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ot ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ ᾿Αθηναίων 
στρατιῶται, τὰ μὲν καὶ ᾿Αλκιβιάδον προσπέμψαντος λόγους ἐς τοὺς δυνατω- 
τάτους αὐτῶν ἄνδρας, ὥστε μνησθῆναι περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐς τοὺς βελτίστους τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων, ὅτι ἐπ᾽ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ βούλεται καὶ οὐ πονηρίᾳ οὐδὲ δημοκρατίᾳ τῇ 
ἑαυτὸν ἐκβαλούσῃ κατελθὼν καὶ παρασχὼν Τισσαφέρνην φίλον αὐτοῖς ξυμπολ- 
ιτεύειν, τὸ δὲ πλέον καὶ ἀπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν οἱ ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ τριήραρχοί τε 
τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ δυνατώτατοι ὥρμηντο ἐς τὸ καταλῦσαι τὴν δημοκρατίαν. 

ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἤσθοντο. At first Thucydides speaks of the army or fleet 
generally, who werc attracted by the magic name of Alcibiades and 
the report of his influence over the Persian satrap. But when he 
goes on to refer to the overthrow of the democracy he speaks only 
of the trierarchs or chief men, who availed themselves of the feel- 
ing which prevailed in the fleet to carry out their own purposes, 
instigated partly by Alcibiades, still more by the natural feeling of 
men in their position. τὰ μέν «.r.A. gives the reason for what 
follows, ὥρμηντο és τὸ καταλῦσαι τὴν δημοκρατίαν, not for what pre- 
cedes, ἤσθοντο αὐτὸν ἰσχύοντα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. 

οἱ βέλτιστοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, a flattering term, like οἱ ἀγαθοί in 
Theognis, or the common place οἱ καλοὶ κἀγαθοί, by which the 
aristocratical party loved to describe themselves. Cp. Theogn. 
289,— 


NOTES, BOOK VIII, 489 


νῦν δὲ τὰ τῶν ἀγαθῶν κακὰ γίνεται ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν 47. 2. 
ἀνδρῶν ἡγέονται δ᾽ ἐκτραπέλοισι νόμοις : 
and c. 48 fin. infra, τοὺς καλοὺς κἀγαθοὺς ὀνομαζομένους. 
ov πονηρίᾳ οὐδὲ δημοκρατίᾳ x.7.A. cp. vi. 89 fin. of ἐπὶ ra πονηρότερα 
ἐξῆγον τὸν ὄχλον, and 92 init. φυγάς εἶμι τῆς τῶν ἐξελασάντων πονηρίας : 
where the same word occurs in the mouth of Alcibiades. 


πολλὰς ἐλπίδας εἶχον αὐτοί τε αὑτοῖς of δυνατοὶ τῶν πολιτῶν Ta mpay- 48. I. 
@ 4 ~ 0 » φ a ’ 4 “ 

ματα, οἵπερ καὶ ταλαιπωροῦνται μάλιστα, ἐς αὑτοὺς περιποιήσειν, καὶ τῶν 
πολεμίων ἐπικρατήσειν. 

The sense shows that we must read αὑτοῖς, and not, with a 
majority of MSS., αὐτοῖς, τέ answers to καί before τῶν πολεμίων. 
Two motives animate the oligarchs, their personal interests, and 
their hopes of victory over the Peloponnesians. 


καὶ ὁ μὲν ὄχλος, εἰ καί τι παραυτίκα ἤχθετο τοῖς πρασσομένοις, διὰ τὸ 48. 3, 
εὔπορον τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ [παρὰ] βασιλέως μισθοῦ ἡσύχαζεν. 
τὸ εὔπορον τῆς ἐλπίδος, either 1) the readiness with which the hope 
of the King’s pay suggested itself to them, or 2)* the attractiveness 
to them, in their present poverty and distress, of the hope of good 
pay, ‘the comfortable condition suggested by the hope.’ 


of δὲ ξυνιστάντες τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐπειδὴ τῷ πλήθει ἐκοίνωσαν, αὖθις κἀν 48. 3. 
σφίσιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦ ἑταιρικοῦ τῷ πλέονι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδον 
ἐσκόπουν. 

ἐκοίνωσαν, which has the lesser MS. authority, seems to be 
required by the sense, instead of ἐκοινώνησαν. And Dobree’s con- 
jecture κἀν must be substituted for καί, the reading of all the MSS. 


τοὺς Te καλοὺς κἀγαθοὺς ὀνομαζομένους οὐκ ἐλάσσω αὐτοὺς νομίζειν σφίσι 48. Ὅ. 
πράγματα παρέξειν τοῦ δήμου, ποριστὰς ὄντας καὶ ἐσηγητὰς τῶν κακῶν τῷ 
δήμῳ, ἐξ ὧν τὰ πλείω αὐτοὺς ὠφελεῖσθαι. 
The oligarch Phrynichus himself acknowledges that the allies 
had no reason to expect any alleviation of their lot from a change 
of government. For the injustices which the Athenian people had 
committed against them were instigated by oligarchical leaders. 
Yet there is little in the history of Athens, so far as it is known 
to us, which justifies such a statement. There is no reason to 


48. 6. 


48. 6. 


49. 1. 


50. 4. 


50. 5. 


490 THUCYDIDES. 


suppose that the fate of Aegina or Mitylene is to be ascribed to 
the oligarchical party; though it is true that Thessalus, Pisander, - 
Charicles, and other oligarchs had stimulated the popular fanaticism 
against Alcibiades, (cp. vi. 89 fin. of ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρότερα ἐξῆγον τὸν 
ὄχλον, οἶπερ καὶ ἐμὲ ἐξήλασαν.) 

ποριστὰς.... τῶν κακῶν, either providing the ways and means, or 
creating the occasions, of crime. 


καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνους εἶναι καὶ ἄκριτοι ἂν καὶ βιαιότερον ἀποθνήσκειν. 

ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνους. The dat. is the more usual construction, but ἐκείνους 
is the reading of many of the best MSS. Cp. iv. 28 init. τὸ ἐπὶ 
σφᾶς εἶναι : Lys. in Agor. (xiii.) 64, καὶ τό ye ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνον εἶναι ἐσώθης : 
Eur. Or, 1345,— 


a>» 8 


σώθηθ᾽ ὅσον ye roum ἔμ᾽ : 
and so τοὐπὶ σ᾽, in Hec. 514, Alcest. 666, Rhesus 397. 
ἄκριτοι. The accusative would be more regular; but the nomina- 
tive is used as if ὅτι ἐνόμιζον and not νομίζειν had preceded. They 
said to themselves, ‘ As far as the oligarchy are concerned we shall 
be put to death without trial and in a more unscrupulous manner.’ 


οἱ δὲ ξυλλεγέντες τῶν ἐν TH ξυμμαχίᾳ, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτοῖς 
ἐδόκει, τά τε παρόντα ἐδέχοντο καὶ ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας πρέσβεις Πείσανδρον καὶ 
ἄλλους παρεσκευάζοντο πέμπειν. 

ξυμμαχίᾳ, which is the reading of all the MSS., is indefensible ; 
the word is never used in the sense required. Most editors have 
therefore adopted Haacke’s conjecture ξυνωμοσίᾳ. 


πέμπει κατὰ Φρυνίχου γράμματα ἐς τὴν Σάμον πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τέλει ὄντας 
οἷα δέδρακε. 
οἷα δέδρακε follows the idea οὗ γράφει implied in πέμπει γράμματα. 


θυρυβούμενος δὲ ὁ Φρύνιχος, καὶ πάνν ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ κινδύνῳ ὧν διὰ τὸ 
μήνυμα, ἀποστέλλει αὖθις πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αστύοχον. 

καὶ πάνυ may be taken, either 1) with θορυβούμενος, in which case 
ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ κινδύνῳ ὧν will supply the reason— for he was in the 
very greatest danger.’ But πάνυ or καὶ πάνυ, though very common 
in Thucydides, do not occur after the verb or participle to which 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 491 


they belong, and ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ κινδύνῳ ὧν is very abrupt. Better 50. 5. 
2)* with év—‘ and indeed he was in the greatest danger.’ 


καὶ of μὲν τὸν τειχισμόν τε παρεσκευάζοντο, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ ὡς δ]. 2. 

μέλλουσα Σάμος θᾶσσον ἐτειχίσθη" ai δὲ παρὰ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου ἐπιστολαὶ 
οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἧκον. 

παρεσκευάζοντο answers to ἧκον, the historical fact of the com- 
pletion of the wall being thrown in by the way. ‘While they were 
engaged in fortifying the place, the expected letter came’ (lit. had 
come) ‘from Alcibiades ;’ τέ answering to καί and μέν to δέ. 

‘Hence Samos, which was going to be fortified in any case, was 
sooner fortified.’ Cp. note on iii. 33. 2. 


δόξας δὲ ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης οὐ πιστὸς εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων προει- 5]. 4. 
das τῷ Φρυνίχῳ ὡς ξυνειδότι κατ᾽ ἔχθραν ἀνατιθέναι, οὐδὲν ἔβλαψεν αὐτόν, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ξυνεμαρτύρησε μᾶλλον ταὐτὰ ἐσαγγείλας. 

The imagined coincidence between the information of Alcibiades 
and the precautionary measures taken by Phrynichus tended to 
re-establish the credit of the latter. The Athenians at the time 
were not likely to understand that the intended attack on Samos, 
against which Phrynichus had forewarned them, was a trick of his 
own, designed to save himself. 

When the attack after all did not take place, it might be thought 
that suspicion would be aroused. But Phrynichus, finding himself 
in great danger, probably took his chance of the result. And the 
Athenians may have supposed that the attempt would naturally be 
given up when the news that Samos was put in a state of defence 
reached Miletus. 

Notwithstanding the words of Alcibiades, of πολέμιοι μέλλουσιν 
ἐπιθήσεσθαι, the idea of the attack on Samos never existed at all 
except in the brain of Phrynichus, who suggested it to Astyochus, 
and he, as Phrynichus foresaw, betrayed it to Alcibiades. Alci- 
biades made use of the fiction to show his zeal in the cause of the 
Athenians and to point his accusation against Phrynichus. He 
could not inform the Athenians that his information was due to 
the treachery of Astyochus without at the same time betraying the 
fact that it was valueless, and that the attack of which he warned 


492 THUCYDIDES. 


51. 3. them was not intended by the Spartan commander to be carried 


52. 


53. 


53. 3. 


54. 


I. 


2. 


I. 


out. 


βουλόμενον δὲ ὅμως, εἰ δύναιτό πως, πεισθῆναι, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὴν 
ἐν τῇ Κνίδῳ διαφορὰν περὶ τοῦ Θηραμένους σπονδῶν ἥσθετο τοῦ Πελοποννη- 
σίων (ἤδη γάρ, κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ρόδῳ ὄντων αὐτῶν, ἐγεγένητο), 
ἐν 9 τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδον λόγον πρότερον εἰρημένον... . ἐπηλήθευσεν ὁ Λίχας. 

‘For, they being at this time at Rhodes, the quarrel had already 
taken place.’ The manner in which Lichas had behaved at Cnidus, 
before the Peloponnesians departed to Rhodes, had impressed the 
mind of Tissaphernes, and made him incline more and more 
towards the ideas of Alcibiades. 

Thucydides had gone back in order to give a full account of 
Alcibiades’ intrigues (c. 45 init. ἐν δὲ τούτῳ καὶ ἔτι πρότερον, πρὶν ἐς 
τὴν “Ῥόδον αὐτοὺς ἀναστῆναι, τάδε ἐπράσσετο)γ. He now returns to the 
point of departure, and connects them with the main thread of 
his history. 

ἐπειδὴ ἥσθετο, 1) ‘when Tissaphernes saw,’ not, ‘when he was 
informed of,’ for he was present, c. 43, and ‘ went away in a rage;’ 
or 2) when Alcibiades saw the opportunity given to him by the 
differences which had occurred at Cnidus. 


npwra ἕνα ἕκαστον παράγων τῶν ἀντιλεγύντων. 


παράγων answers to παρελθών, “ calling him up.’ 


καὶ μὴ περὶ πολιτείας τὸ πλεῖον βουλεύσωμεν ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἣ περὶ σωτη- 
plas’ ὕστερον γὰρ ἐξέσται ἡμῖν καὶ μεταθέσθαι, ἣν μή τι ἀρέσκῃ" K.7.d. 

From a variety of readings, several of them unmeaning, Dobree 
elicits βουλεύσωμεν, a very slight alteration of βουλεύσομεν ( Vat.) 
The clause καὶ μή περὶ πολιτείας... ἀρέσκῃ may be regarded as a 
parenthesis, which gives life to the passage. The Vat. βουλεύσομεν 
would correspond to ποιήσομεν supra and κατάξομεν infra. 


δείσας καὶ dua [ἐπ] ελπίξων, ὡς καὶ μεταβαλεῖται. 

ἐπελπίζων is the reading of the best Μ55. If correct, it must be 
explained in a neuter sense, ‘hoping besides,’ or ‘having hopes 
for the future,’ though in the other passage where it occurs in 
Thucydides it is active, viii. 1 init. θειάσαντες ἐπήλπισαν ὡς καὶ 
λήψονται Σικελίαν. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 493 


ἀπεχώρησαν ἐς τὴν Χάλκην, καὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἐντεῦθεν μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκ τῆς ὅδ. 1. 
Κῶ ἐποιοῦντο. 

The context shows that μᾶλλον ἥ, ποῖ μᾶλλον, is the true 
reading. # was inserted by Palmer, and has since been found in 
one MS. (M in the British Museum). 


δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ ὁ Τισσαφέρνης τὸ αὐτὸ βουληθῆναι, αὐτὸς μὲν διὰ τὸ 5G. 3. 
δέος, ὁ δὲ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, ἐπειδὴ ἑώρα ἐκεῖνον καὶ ὡς οὐ ξυμβασείοντα, δοκεῖν 
τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐβούλετο μὴ ἀδύνατος εἶναι πεῖσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πεπεισμένῳ 
Τισσαφέρνει καὶ βουλομένῳ προσχωρῆσαι τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους μὴ ἱκανὰ διδόναι. 

τὸ αὐτὸ βουληθῆναι. In the first instance Alcibiades and Tissa- 
phernes did not want the same thing, for Alcibiades wanted Tissa- 
phernes to assist the Athenians. To this Tissaphernes was afraid 
to commit himself through fear of the Lacedaemonians. But, if 
Tissaphernes would not assist the Athenians, they were both agreed 
that the negociations should be broken off. τὸ αὐτό, scil. μὴ ξυμβῆναι. 
Further, if agreement were in any case (καὶ ὥς) hopeless, Alcibiades, 
in order to screen his failure, thought that, instead of breaking off 
themselves, they should make the Athenians break off by increas- 
ing their demands. This new motive is introduced into the clause 
ὁ δὲ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, which therefore does not correspond exactly, either 
in sense or construction, to αὐτὸς μὲν διὰ τὸ δέος. 


ἥτει yap τοσαῦτα ὑπερβάλλων ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, λέγων αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ παρόντος BB. 4. 
Τισσαφέρνους, ὥστε τὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, καίπερ ἐπὶ πολὺ ὅ τι αἰτοίη ξυγχω- 
ρούντων, ὅμως αἴτιον γενέσθαι. 

If, with Vat. and Bekker, we insert the article τό before τῶν ᾿Αθη- 
ναίων, it may be taken either 1) with τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ‘the Athenian 
side,’ or ‘the conduct of the Athenians,’ or 2) with αἴτιον, ‘so that 
it became the fault of the Athenians,’ scil. ὥστε γενέσθαι τὸ τῶν 
᾿Αθηναίων αἴτιον. The order of the words is in favour of 1). 

But the omission of the article is not indefensible. We must, 
as in 2), supply an indefinite subject with γενέσθαι, ‘so that it,’ 
scil. the breaking off of the negociations, ‘was chargeable to the 
Athenians.’ 


é δι a 
Ἰωνίαν re yap πᾶσαν ἠξίουν δίδοσθαι, καὶ αὖθις νήσους re τὰς ἐπικει- 5G, 4. 


Ld a ¢ ~ a ’ 
μένας καὶ ἄλλα, οἷς οὐκ ἐναντιουμένων τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, τέλος ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ 


δ6. 4. 


56, δ. 


67. 1 


494 THUCYDIDES. 


ἤδη ξυνόδῳ, δείσας μὴ πάνυ φωραθῆ ἀδύνατος dy, vais ἠξίου ἐᾶν βασιλέα 
ποιεῖσθαι καὶ παραπλεῖν τὴν ἑαυτῶν γῆν ὅπῃ ἂν καὶ ὅσαις ἂν βούληται. 

ναῦς ποιεῖσθαι καὶ παραπλεῖν --οναὺῦς ποιησάμενον παραπλεῖν. The MS. 
authority is strongly in favour of éavrov. The sense favours ἑαυτῶν. 
For it can hardly have been considered an extravagant demand 
on the part of Alcibiades, after the Athenians had given up Ionia 
and the adjacent islands, that the King should be allowed to sail 
along his own coasts. The case would have been different if he 
had claimed to sail about the Greek coasts. The islands would 
have been a useless possession if he had not been allowed to sail 
to them. Like Agamemnon, i. 9. fin., if he were to rule them, 
‘he would have required a considerable navy.’ 

The demand may certainly have been one which, though not in 
itself extravagant, Alcibiades knew that the Athenians, perhaps as 
a matter of sentiment, would be indisposed to grant. Whether the 
treaty of Cimon or Callias, by which the King was forbidden to 
send ships of war along the west coast of Asia Minor, is a histo- 
rical reality or not—it was doubted by ancient writers, Theopompus 
(Fragm. 167, 168), Callisthenes (Plut. Cim. xiii.), both writing about 
the middle of the fourth century 8.c.—it is plain that between the 
date of the supposed truce (about 466 or 449) and 411 no Persian 
vessels are heard of in the waters of the Aegean. 

But, on the other hand, it may be asked, why should Athenian 
oligarchs, who were willing to betray Athens itself (viii. 91 fin.), 
have taken offence at any such stipulation? 

Upon the whole it seems better to adopt the less supported 
reading ἑαυτῶν (ἑαυτῶν not σφῶν, for the sake of emphasis, although 
referring to the remoter subject ᾿Αθηναίους) See Kriiger, Studien 
(i. 86-91), who gives many strong reasons (pp. 74-143) for reject- 
ing the treaty of Callias. Curtius also is disposed to reject the peace : 
see Eng. Trans. vol. ii. p. 408 foll. Mr. Grote, note on Part II. 
ch. xlv., takes the opposite view, but on insufficient grounds. 


ἐνταῦθα δὴ οὐκέτι τι, ἀλλ᾽ ἅπορα νομίσαντες οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι x,t. 
An ellipse, with which may be supplied συγχωροῦσι, from ἐπὶ 
πολὺ ξυγχωρούντων above. 


—t—-ew ἐκκεπολεμῆσθαι. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 495 


‘Not to have war made upon him outright.’ The reading 67, 1. 
ἐκπεπολεμῶσθαι, which is found in the Vatican, is an unnecessary 
correction. Cp. note on iv. 20. 2. 


δεδιὼς μή, ἣν ἀπορῶσι πολλαῖς ναυσὶ τῆς τροφῆς, ἢ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις 57. 1. 
ἀναγκασθέντες ναυμαχεῖν ἡσσηθῶσιν, 7, κενωθεισῶν τῶν νεῶν, ἄνεν ἑαυτοῦ 
γένηται τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἃ βούλονται. 

γένηται τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἃ βούλονται is a variation of ἡσσηθῶσιν, and 
in sense, though not in construction, goes with both clauses. 


πάντων οὖν τούτων λογισμῷ καὶ προνοίᾳ, ὥσπερ ἐβούλετο ἐπανισοῦν 57 2. 
τοὺς Ἕλληνας πρὸς ἀλλήλους, μεταπεμψάμενος οὖν τοὺς Πελοποννησίους 
κιτλ. 
ὥσπερ ἐβούλετο, ‘in accordance with his intentions.’ ἐπανισοῦν, 
infin. after ἐβούλετο. οὖν after μεταπεμψάμενος is a resumption of οὖν 
after πάντων. 


ξυνθῆκαι ἐγένοντο ἐν Μαιάνδρου πεδίῳ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων 58, 1. 
πρὸς Τισσαφέρνην καὶ Ἱεραμένην καὶ τοὺς Φαρνάκου παῖδας. 

Hieramenes, probably the brother-in-law of Darius, mentioned 
Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 9. The sons of Pharnaces were Pharnabazus 
(viii. 6 init.) and his brothers. 


᾿ χώραν τὴν βασιλέως, ὅση τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐστί, βασιλέως etvat’ καὶ περὶ τῆς 68. 2. 
χώρας τῆς ἑαντοῦ βουλενέτω βασιλεύς, ὅπως βούλεται. 

. The clause of the treaty which expresses the claims of the King 
is so ambiguously worded as to be practically innocuous. ‘The 
King’s country’ would mean, according to the Lacedaemonian 
reading of the words, only that part of Asia in which he had been 
able to maintain his authority since the Persian war. But the 
representatives of the King probably mean to include all the 
territory which the King had ever held, and of which he was again 
beginning to demand the tribute from his satraps. 


τροφὴν δὲ ταῖς ναυσὶ ταῖς νῦν παρούσαις Τισσαφέρνην παρέχειν κατὰ τὰ 58, &. 
ξυγκείμενα μέχρι ἂν al νῆες al βασιλέως ἔλθωσι. 

The words κατὰ τὰ ξυγκείμενα refer either to c. 5. 5, or to c. 29, 
or to c. 37. 4, or to some agreement which was understood to be 
made on the present occasion. 


6l. 2. 


61. 2. 


62. 3. 


496 THUCYDIDES. 


Λεόντα ἄνδρα Σπρατιάτην ὃς ᾿Αντισθένει ἐπιβάτης ξυνεξῆλθε. 

Either 1)* ‘who came out with Antisthenes as ἃ marine:’ 
as in the Athenian service, Thrasyllus, who was only a hoplite, 
becomes one of the στρατηγοί at Samos (c. 73 med., 76 init.) Or 
2) more simply, ‘who came out in the ship of Antisthenes as a 
private passenger.’ There is no proof that ἐπιβάτης was the title 
of an inferior naval officer in the Spartan service. 


vais δώδεκα, ai ἔτυχον φύλακες Μιλήτου οὖσαι. 
These ships must have been left behind to guard Miletus when 
the main fleet removed to Rhodes (c. 44). 


és τὸ ἀντιπέρας τῆς ᾿Αβύδου ἀποπλεύσας, Σηστὸν πόλιν τῆς Χερσονήσου, 
ἣν τότε Μῆδοι εἶχον, καθίστατο φρούριον καὶ φυλακὴν τοῦ παντὸς “EAAn- 
σπόντου. 

All but ἃ few MSS. (among which is Vat.) read τότε not πότε. 
But τότε cannot be taken in the sense of ‘in those days,’ meaning 
the days of the Persian war (i. 89 med.) 

That the reference of rére is often exceedingly lax, and can only 
be a) imperfectly gathered from the context, or 4) in some cases 
explained by what follows, may be seen from the following 
passages,— 

a) iii. 69 init. ai δὲ τεσσαράκοντα νῆες τῶν Πελοποννησίων, at Λεσβίοις 
βοηθοὶ ἐλθοῦσαι, ws τότε φεύγουσαι διὰ τοῦ πελάγους... πρὸς τὴν Πελο- 
πόννησον κατηνέχθησαν : Vili. 20 init. ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους ai 
ἐν τῷ Πειραιῷ εἴκοσι νῆες τῶν Πελοποννησίων, καταδιωχθεῖσαι τότε καὶ 
ἐφορμούμεναι ἴσῳ ἀριθμῷ ὑπὸ ᾿Αθηναίων : ΟΡ. i. 101 med., ν. 4 med. 

δ) iv. 46 init. οἱ τότε μετὰ τὴν στάσιν διαβάντες ἐκράτουν τε τῆς γῆς 
καὶ πολλὰ ἔβλαπτον : Vil. 31 med. ὄντε δ᾽ αὐτῷ περὶ ταῦτα 6 Εὐρυμέδων 
ἀπαντᾷ ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας ἀποπλέων, ὃς τότε τοῦ χειμῶνος τὰ χρήματα ἄγων 
τῇ στρατιᾷ ἀπεπέμφθη. 

But none of these instances show that τότε is ever used by 
Thucydides absolutely without an antecedent or explanation. In 
viii. 73 init. of yap τότε τῶν Σαμίων ἐπαναστάντες τοῖς δυνατοῖς, which is 
the harshest instance, the circumstance referred to in τότε (viii. 
21) has been recalled to the mind in c. 63 med. 

The sense here decides against the greater weight of MS. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 497 


authority. Either τότε is a corruption of πότε; or possibly the 62. 3. 
words ἣν τότε Μῆδοι εἶχον are an unmeaning gloss referring to i. 
89 med. 


πυθόμενος τὰ περὶ τῆς ναυμαχίας Kai τὸν Στρομβιχίδην καὶ τὰς ναῦς BS. I. 
ἀπεληλυθότα. 

ἀπεληλυθότα refers to the principal subject, like βουλόμενος in iv. 
112, Βρασίδας μὲν οὖν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος... βουλόμενος x.7.2. 


ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οἱ περὶ τὸν Πείσανδρον πρέσβεις παρὰ τοῦ Τισσαφέρνους ἐς 68. 3. 
τὴν Σάμον ἦλθον, τά τε ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ στρατεύματι ἔτι βεβαιότερον κατέλαβον, 
καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν Σαμίων προὐτρέψαντο τοὺς δυνατοὺς ὥστε πειρᾶσθαι μετὰ 
σφῶν ὄλιγαρχηθῆναι, καίπερ ἐπαναστάντας αὐτοὺς ἀλλήλοις ἵνα μὴ ὀλι- 
γαρχῶνται. 

κατέλαβον κιαλ. Either 1) ‘got a still firmer grasp upon the 
army ;’ or 2)* ‘strengthened still more completely their interests 
in the army.’ 

Sufficient authority may be gathered for the reading προὐτρέψαντο 
(instead of προτρεψάντων) from the Vatican MS. from a MS. in 
the British Museum, and from the corruption προὐτρεψάντων, which 
is found in four good MSS. Although ἐπαναστάντες αὐτοί, OF αὐτοῖς, 
has considerable MS. authority, the sense decides in favour of 
ἐπαναστάντας αὐτούς (Vat.). 

τοὺς δυνατούς may refer 1) to the Samian oligarchy, 2)* to the 
chiefs of the democracy now in power. 

In either case ἀλλήλοις shows that the words ἐπαναστάντας αὐτούς 
refer to the whole Samian people, including both parties. They 
are therefore to be taken, not with τοὺς δυνατούς, but as an accu- 
sative absolute. Cp. for a similar confusion vi. 74 med. οἱ δὲ τούς 
τε ἄνδρας διέφθειραν πρότερον καὶ τότε στασιάζοντες καὶ ἐν ὅπλοις ὄντες 
éxexparovy μὴ δέχεσθαι τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους οἱ ταῦτα βουλόμενοι. There is 
however some inaccuracy in the words ἵνα μὴ ὀλιγαρχῶνται ; for, 
not both parties, but only the democracy, could be said to have 
risen up ‘in order to put down the oligarchy.’ 

In the second case the words οἱ δυνατοί are used in a different 
sense from οἱ δυνατοί in cc. 21, 73. But this is not impossible. 
The meaning of the word is naturally determined by the context. 

VOL. II. Kk 


498 THUCYDIDES. 


63. 3. And the comparison of c. 73 init. referring to the same incidents, . δ 
in which stress is laid on the fact of the Samian democrats having 
joined the Athenian oligarchs, decides in favour of 2)*. 


63. 4. ἐσκέψαντο ᾿Αλκιβιάδην μέν͵ ἐπειδήπερ ov βούλεται, ἐᾶν x.rd. 
ἐσκέψαντο is here used in a pregnant sense for ἐβούλοντο oF 
ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς. 


64. 4. καὶ γὰρ καὶ φυγὴ αὐτῶν ἔξω ἦν ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων. 
φυγή for φυγάδες, abstract for concrete, as in Isoc. de Pace (viii) 
149, καὶ ras φυγὸς τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν τυράννων καὶ ras ἐπὶ τῶν τριάκοντα 


γενομένας οὐ διὰ τοὺς συκοφάντας κατελθούσας. 


θ4. 5. σωφροσύνην γὰρ λαβοῦσαι αἱ πόλεις καὶ ἄδειαν τῶν πρασφομένων ἐχώρη- 
σαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄντικρυς ἐλευθερίαν, τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ὕπουλον αὐτονομίαν 
οὐ προτιμήσαντες. 

‘The cities obtaining ἃ more sober,’ or ‘ constitutional, form of 
government;’ cp. iii. 82. 8, ἀριστοκρατίας σώφρονος προτιμήσει, and viii. 
53 fin. εἰ μὴ πολιτεύσομέν τε σωφρονέστερον καὶ ἐς ὀλιγοὺς μᾶλλον τὰς 
ἀρχὰς ποιήσομεν. The term was readily appropriated by the oligarchs 
themselves, and is here adopted by Thucydides with a certain 
degree of approval. 

αὐτονομίαν, for which εὐνομίαν has been substituted on the authority 
of Dionysius (De iis quae Thuc. propria sunt, c. xi.), who reads τῆς 
ὑπούλου εὐνομίας, though difficult to explain, is probably correct. 
It has been argued that the Athenians did not give their allies 
‘independence.’ But they may well have given them a ‘ deceitful 
independence,’ i.e. they may have promised to give them an in- 
dependence which they never expected to obtain, such as that 
which the Lesbians at Olympia ironically describe themselves as 
already enjoying (iil, 10 fin. αὐτόνομοι δὴ ὄντες καὶ ἐλεύθεροι .τῷ 
ὀνόματι.) The reading in Dionysius is probably a slip of memory. 


~ “ ’ “ 
65. 32. λόγος τε ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ προσείργαστο αὐτοῖς ὡς οὔτε μισθοφορητέον 
μὰ ad a 4 . ἷ ca “- ’ ° 
εἴη ἄλλους ἣ τοὺς στρατενομένους, οὔτε μεθεκτέον τῶν πραγμάτων πλείοσιν 
ἢ πεντακισχιλίοις, καὶ τούτοις οἱ ἂν μάλιστα τοῖς τε χρήμασι καὶ τοῖς 


, > “ , 4 
σώμασιν ὠφελεῖν οἷοί τε ὦσιν. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 499 


mpuceipyaoro, i.e. besides acts of violence they had specious 68, 3. 
professions to meet the public ear. 

ὡς οὔτε μισθοφορητέον x.r.4. The natural effect of the non-payment 
of dicasts and ecclesiasts would be to exclude the poorer classes 
from the dicasteria and the ecclesia. Moreover the numbers of 
the ecclesia were in no case to exceed 5000, cp. c. 72. 

πεντακισχιλίοις. Under the Thirty Tyrants a similar device was 
adopted of a council of 3000, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 18, ἐκ τούτου μέντοι 
Κριτίας καὶ of ἄλλοι οἱ ἐκ τῶν τριάκοντα, ἤδη φοβούμενοι καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα 
τὸν Θηραμένην, μὴ συῤῥνῶσιν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ πολῖται, καταλέγουσι τρισχιλίους 
τοὺς μεθέξοντας δὴ τῶν πραγμάτων. 


ἐπεὶ ἕξειν γε τὴν πόλιν οἵπερ καὶ μεθιστάναι ἔμελλον. 66. I. 
ἕξειν, emphatic: ‘they were really intending to be masters of the 

city who were going to effect the revolution.’ For καί see note on 

iv. 62. 4. 


€Bovrevoy δὲ οὐδὲν ὅ τι μὴ τοῖς ξυνεστῶσι δοκοίη, ἀλλὰ καὶ of λέγοντες BB. 1. 
ἐκ τούτων ἦσαν, καὶ τὰ ῥηθησόμενα πρότερον αὐτοῖς προὔσκεπτο. 

αὐτοῖς, a dat. of relation. Either 1) ‘they had had what was to be 
spoken previously submitted to them.’ Or 2) reading, with the 
MSS., προὐσκέπτετο, ‘they used to have it submitted to them.’ There 
is no reason for rejecting such a form in a passive sense, though 
no instance of it is found, cp. ἐργάζομαι, εἴργασμαι, εἰργαζόμην (pass. ) 
and ὠνούμενα (Plat. Phaed. 69 B), éwveiro (Xen. de Re Equest. 8. 2) ; 
see Matth. Gr. Gr. 495d. προὔσκεπτο is the conjecture of Bauer and 
Elmsley. 


ἀλλ᾽ ἡσυχίαν εἶχεν ὁ δῆμος καὶ κατάπληξιν τοιαύτην Sore κέρδος ὁ μὴ BB. 2. 
πάσχων τι βίαιον, εἰ καὶ σιγῴη, ἐνόμιζε. 

εἰ καὶ σιγῴ. The optative, here signifying ‘repeated action in 
past time,’ carries on the indefiniteness of ὁ μὴ πάσχων. Cp. εἰ δέ 
τις καὶ ἀντείποι... εἰ ὑποπτεύοιντο just above. καί, ‘if he were silent 
too,’ or ‘silent though he were: ‘even although he were silent,’ 
would be καὶ εἰ. Cp. note on iv. 22. 3. 


καὶ τὸ ξυνεστηκὸς πολὺ πλέον ἡγούμενοι εἶναι, ἢ ὅσον ἐτύγχανεν ὅν, BB. 3. 


kKk2 


66. 3. 


66. 4. 


66. 5. 


66. 5. 


500 THUCYDIDES. 


ἡσσῶντο ταῖς γνώμαις, καὶ ἐξευρεῖν αὐτὸ ἀδύνατοι ὄντες διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς 
πόλεως καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀλλήλων ἀγνωσίαν οὐκ εἶχον. 

ὄν, the reading in the text, was conjectured by Portus, and is 
found in one inferior MS. (I), and in the margin of another MS. 
(Lugd.). ὃ ἦν, which is found in all the rest, though singular, is not 
absolutely indefensible; ‘than the whole strength of what there was.’ 

The MSS. are divided between αὐτοί and αὐτό after ἐξευρεῖν, and 
many of them, including the best, repeat αὐτοί (or αὐτό) ἐξευρεῖν 
after οὐκ εἶχον. The repetition, and the parallelism of ἀδύνατοι ὄντες 
and οὐκ εἴχομ, suggest either a dittography or a gloss. 

As the text stands, ἐξευρεῖν is dependent on ἀδύνατοι ὄντες, and also 
On οὐκ εἶχον, which pleonastically repeats the same idea. αὐτό, 
8011, ὅσον ἐτύγχανεν ὅν, not simply the conspirators, but the fact 
about them. 

ἀγνωσίαν, Compare Aristotle, Pol. vit. 4. 13, πρὸς δὲ τὸ κρίνειν 
περὶ τῶν δικαίων, καὶ πρὸς τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς διανέμειν κατ᾽ ἀξίαν, ἀναγκαῖον 
γνωρίζειν ἀλλήλους, ποῖοί τινές εἶσι, τοὺς πολίτας, ὡς ὅπου τοῦτο μὴ συμ- 
βαίνει γίγνεαθαι, φαύλως ἀνάγκη γίγνεσθαι τὰ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς 
κρίσεις" περὶ ἀμφότερα γὰρ οὐ δίκαιον αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, ὅπερ ἐν τῇ πολναν»- 


θρωπίᾳ τῇ λίαν ὑπάρχει φανερῶς. 


κατὰ δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ προσολοφύρασθαί τινι ἀγανακτήσαντα, ὥστε 
ἀμύνασθαι ἐπιβουλεύσαντα, ἀδύνατον ἦν. 

1) ‘So that he could defend himself against an opponent who 
had a design upon him.’ ἐπιβουλεύσαντα without the article is 
indefinite, ‘any one who had a design upon him. Or 2)* ἐπιβου- 
λεύσαντα is the subject; ‘to defend or revenge himself by a plot.’ 


ἀλλήλοις yap ἅπαντες ὑπόπτως προσήεσαν οἱ τοῦ δήμαυ, ὡς μετέχοντά 
τινα τῶν γιγνομένων, 

The accusative μετέχοντα is used as though some transitive verb, 
such as ὑπώπτευον, had preceded; or is governed by the idea of 
νομίζοντες contained in as, see Jelf, ὃ 703, c. 


καὶ TO ἄπιστον οὗτοι μέγιστον πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐποίησαν, καὶ πλεῖστα 
ἐς τὴν τῶν ὀλίγων ἀσφάλειαν ὠφέλησαν, βέβαιον τὴν ἀπιστίαν τῷ δήμῳ 


[4 
πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καταστήσαντες, 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 501 


The repetition of ἄπιστον and ἀπιστία suggests that this is one of 66. 5. 
the unfinished passages of Book VIII. Thucydides means to say 
that the surprising changes of opinion which occurred gave the 
popular party a determined or settled mistrust of one another. 


εἶπον γνώμην δέκα ἄνδρας ἑλέσθαι ξυγγραφέας αὐτοκράτορας. 67. I. 
Scil. Decemviros legibus scribendis. Arnold compares the for- 

mula by which the Thirty were appointed, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 2, 

ἔδοξε τῷ δήμῳ τριάκοντα ἄνδρας ἑλέσθαι, ot τοὺς πατρίους νόμους ξυγγράψουσι, 


καθ΄ vbs πολιτεύσουσι. 


. ἔπειτα ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἡμέρα ἐφῆκε, ξυνέκλῃσαν ἐὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐς τὸν Κολωνόν᾽ 67. 2. 
ἔστι δὲ ἱερὸν Ποσειδῶνος ἔξω πόλεως, ἀπέχον σταδίους μάλιστα δέκα. 
ξυνέκλῃσαν, which is found, with some variations of form, in many 
good and a few inferior MSS., the others having ξυνέλεξαν, is 
difficult to explain. For, though it may be true that assemblies of 
the people were shut utp or enclosed in a given space, ‘to shut up’ 
is not synonymous with ‘to summon’ or ‘assemble.’ The meaning 
may be 1) that ‘the assembly was confined to the temple at 
Colonus,’ which would only have contained a small proportion of 
the whole people. Or 2)* we may read ξυνέλεξαν. 


ὁ μέντοι ἅπαν τὸ πρᾶγμα ξυνθείς, ὅτῳ τρόπῳ κατέστη ἐς τοῦτο, καὶ ἐκ 68. 1. 
πλείστον ἐπιμεληθεὶς ᾿Αντίφων ἦν, ἀνὴρ ᾿Αθηναίων τῶν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἀρετῇ τε 
οὐδενὸς ὕστερος καὶ κράτιστος ἐνθυμηθῆναι γενόμενος καὶ ἃ γνοίη εἰπεῖν. 

ὅτῳ τρόπῳ introduces an indirect statement, which is the expan- 
sion of ὅπαν τὸ πρᾶγμα. ‘ He who contrived the whole matter, how 
it came to this.” In other words, ‘he who contrived the means 
by which the whole design was accomplished.’ Cp. iii. 59. 1, 
and note, ws ἀστάθμητον τὸ τῆς ξυμφορᾶς, ᾧ τινί wor’ ἄν κιτὰλ. 

ἀρετῇ. It has excited surprise that Thucydides should speak 
of Antiphon, the traitor to the democracy, and the employer of 
assassins, as ‘a man inferior in virtue to none of his contemporaries.’ 
But neither here nor elsewhere does Thucydides pass moral 
judgments. The virtue of which he is speaking is virtue in the 
more general or ancient sense; a virtue such as distinguished 
the Lacedaemonians, who are said to have been exceedingly vir- 
tuous at home, while they were lawless among strangers (i. 77 fin., 


502 THUCYDIDES. 


68, 1. v. 105 fin.); or, the family of Pisistratus, who are said to have 
been distinguished for the practice of virtue (vi. 54 med.) The 
word means, in the case of Antiphon, ability, force of character, 
and faithfulness to party ties—in the case of the Pisistratidae, 
political moderation—of the Lacedaemonians, order and discipline. 

The statement of Suidas that Thucydides uses ἀρετή for εὐδοκία 
clearly refers, not to this passage, but to i. 33 med. φέρουσα ἐς μὲν 
τοὺς πολλοὺς ἀρετήν, ols δ᾽ ἐπαμυνεῖτε, χάριν. 

Aristophanes alludes to the ‘hungriness’ (Wasps 1270), and 
to the ‘drunkenness’ (Wasps 1299) of Antiphon, if the same 
-person be intended, as the mention of οἱ περὶ Φρύνιχον in the latter 
passage seems to imply,— 

ov yap ὁ γέρων ἀτηρότατον ἄρ᾽ ἦν κακὸν 

καὶ τῶν παρόντων πολὺ παροινικώτατος ; 
καΐτοι παρὴν Ἵππυλλος, ᾿Αντιφῶν, Λύκων, 
Λυσίστρατος, Θούφραστος, οἱ περὶ Φρύνιχον, 
τούτων ἁπάντων ἦν ὑβριστότατος μακρῷ. 

The Life of Antiphon by Pseudo-Plutarch, Decem Rhetores, 
p. 832 C, Wyttenbach, iv. i. p. 339, which confuses him witha 
others of the same name, is a worthless fiction. According to this 
writer, Lysias and Theopompus said that Antiphon was not put to 
death until the time of the Thirty Tyrants. The author himself is 
aware that this is not the same Antiphon (Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 40.) 
But he immediately falls into the almost incredible blunder of 
saying that Antiphon was put to death by the Four Hundred 
(ἀναιρεθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων), though he had stated the matter 
correctly a few lines above. 


68,1. ὑπόπτως τῷ πλήθει διὰ δύξαν δεινότητος Staxeipevos. 
δεινότης, not ‘eloquence,’ for that term would not apply to ἃ 
mere writer of speeches, and the word is not used in this sense 
apart from the context, but rather ‘sharp wit,’ ‘astuteness,’ as 
contrasted with moral qualities: cp. Arist. Nic. Eth. vi. 12. 9-- 8. 2. 


. 3 ~ e 
68.2. καὶ αὐτός te, ἐπειδὴ τὰ τῶν τετρακοσίων ἐν ὑστέρῳ μεταπεσόντα ὑπὸ 
~ e “~ a~ o ~ a ~ 
τοῦ δημον ἐκακοῦτο, ἄριστα φαίνεται τῶν μέχρι ἐμοῦ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τούτων 


> a « Ld , Ω » a’ 
αἰτιαθεὶς ὡς ξυγκατέστησε, θανάτου δίκην ἀπολογησάμενος. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 503 


τέ nearly equivalent to the English ‘ too, —‘ and on his own 68. 2. 
behalf too, as well as on that of others.’ See note on i. 9. 3. 


καὶ Θηραμένης ὁ τοῦ “Ayvwwos ἐν τοῖς ξυγκαταλύουσι τὸν δῆμον θ8. 4. 
πρῶτος ἦν. 
See note on iii. 17. 1. 


ἦσαν δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι πάντες ἀεὶ of μὲν ἐπὶ τείχει, of δ᾽ ἐν τάξει, τῶν ἐν BY. I. 
Δεκελείᾳ πολεμίων ἕνεκα, ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις. τῇ οὖν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τοὺς μὲν μὴ 
ξυνειδότας εἴασαν, ὥσπερ εἰώθεσαν, ἀπελθεῖν κ-τ.λ. | 

ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις may be taken 1) with ἐν rage (scil. at their regular 
posts), ‘close to their arms,’ as in vii. 28 init.: or 2)* in a more 
general sense, with ἐπὶ τείχει and ἐν rage, including both ‘ under 
arms,’ and ‘close to their arms’=‘on duty.’ 

ἀπελθεῖν, ‘tO go away, from the assembly which had just been 
held at Colonus, either to their homes, or to their post. 


καὶ of εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν Ἕλληνες νεανίσκοι, οἷς ἐχρῶντο, εἴ ri BO. 4. 
ποῦ δέοι χειρουργεῖν. 
Ἕλληνες νεανίσκοι, aS distinguished from slaves or Scythian bow- 
men. They were probably young oligarchs, the ‘jeunesse dorée’ 
of Athens. The word Ἕλληνες is wanting in several of the best 
MSS. 


καὶ εἶπον αὐτοῖς ἐξίεναι λαβοῦσι τὸν μισθόν ἔφερον δὲ αὐτοῖς τοῦ ὗπο- BO. 4. 
λοίπου χρόνου παντὸς αὐτοί, καὶ ἐξιοῦσιν ἐδίδοσαν. 

Not, as Dukas suggests, the arrears of pay due to them; this 
gives no meaning to παντός, but the pay for the whole of the re- 
mainder of the year (about four months; cp. c. 60 fin., 63 med.), 
in short, they received a douceur. Their pay was a drachma for 
every day on which the council sat. See Boeckh, Staatsh. i. 327. 


ὕστερον δὲ πυλὺ μεταλλάξαντες τῆς τοῦ δήμον διοικήσεως, πλὴν τοὺς 70. 1. 
φεύγοντας οὐ κατῆγον τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου ἕνεκα, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἕνεμον κατὰ 
κράτος τὴν πόλιν. 

τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἔνεμον is said by attraction to οὗ κατῆγον, as if the 
parenthesis which precedes were part of the main sentence. Cp. 

vii. 33 init. σχεδὸν γάρ τι ἤδη πᾶσα ἡ Σικελία, πλὴν ᾿Ακραγαντίνων, (οὗτοι 
δ᾽ οὐδὲ μεθ΄ ἑτέρων ἧσαν,) οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι ἐπὶ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους... ἐβοήθουν. 


504 THUCYDIDES. 


71.1. ὁ δὲ νομίζων τὴν πόλιν οὐχ ἡσυχάζειν, οὐδὲ εὐθὺς οὕτω τὸν δῆμον τὴν 
παλαιὰν ἐλευθερίαν παραδώσειν, εἴ τε στρατιὰν πολλὴν ἴδοι σφῶν, οὐκ ἂν 
ἡσυχάσειν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ παρόντι πάνυ τι πιστεύων μὴ οὐκέτι ταράσσεσθαι 
αὐτούς x.r.A, 

ἡσυχάζειν... οὐκ ἂν ἡσυχάσει. The want of another word has 
led Thucydides to repeat ἡσυχάζειν, ‘he, thinking that they were 
in a state of excitement, and would be still further excited by the 
appearance of a Peloponnesian army.’ But see next note. 

εἴ τε στρατιὰν πολλὴν ἴδοι σφῶν, i.e. not the Athenian large army 
(Haacke), which would be inconsistent with the situation, but the 
large army which Agis was about to summon from Sparta. 

μὴ οὐκέτι ταράσσεσθαι, ‘and doubting whether the tumult,’ which 
he supposed to have occurred, ‘had yet subsided.’ 


71. 1. ἐλπίσας ἢ ταραχθέντας αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον ἂν χειρωθῆναι σφίσιν, ἡ βούλονται, 
ἣ καὶ αὐτοβοεὶ ἂν διὰ τὸν ἔνδοθέν τε καὶ ἔξωθεν κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς γενησόμενον 
θόρυβον' τῶν γὰρ μακρῶν τειχῶν διὰ τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτὰ ἐρημίαν λήψεως οὐκ 
ἂν ἁμαρτεῖν. 

1)* In the prevailing state of anarchy the Athenians would be 
likely to fall more entirely into the hands of the Peloponnesians 
(μᾶλλον, ‘more than if they had not been in a state of anarchy,’ or, 
‘more completely than by any agreement with the oligarchy.’) 
Agis might even take the city without striking a blow. For the 
Long Walls could hardly be guarded, and the capture of them 
would involve the capture of Athens. 

The two clauses μᾶλλον ἂν χειρωθῆναι and 4 καὶ αὐτοβοεί @) are not 
strictly alternatives, although this is the logical form under which 
Thucydides presents them, cp. note on i. 122. 3. The flaw is 
concealed from the writer by the defective expression of the second 
clause, with which αἱρεθῆναι has to be supplied from χειρωθῆναι. It 
is possible also ὁ) that χειρωθῆναι may be taken in the more 
special sense of ‘reduced,’ or ‘ brought to terms,’ in which case 
the capitulation of the city is opposed to its capture by storm. 

2) It may be objected that the taking of the Long Walls did not 
involve the instantaneous capture of the city, any more than in the 
case of Nisaea and Megara, iv. 69 foll. If this objection is thought 
valid we must alter the text, either simply omitting dp, or reading, 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 505 


with two good MSS., τῆς τῶν instead of τῶν γάρ. In the latter case 71. 1. 
we may translate, ‘either they would get the Athenians completely 
into their power; or, assuredly they would not fail in taking, 
almost without a blow, the Long Walls, which, in the confusion, 
would be unguarded.’ But there is a degree of weakness a) in 
using the words καὶ αὐτυβοεί of the taking of the Long Walls after 
the taking of the city has been already suggested, and 4) in con+ 
necting such emphatic words with the negative οὐκ ἂν ἁμαρτεῖν. 

The confusion of this passage, and the tautology in that which 
precedes, may reasonably lead to the inference that this portion 


of the work has not received the last corrections from the author's 
hand. ° 


ἐν γὰρ τῇ Σάμῳ ἐνεωτερίζετο ἤδη τὰ περὶ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. 78. 1. 
γάρ is the explanation of ὅπερ ἐγένετο at the end of the preceding 
chapter. ‘For at this very time a counter-revolution was in pro- 
gress at Samos.’ 


καὶ Ὑπέρβολόν τέ τινα τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, μοχθηρὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὠστρακισμένον 73, 3. 
οὐ διὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀξιώματος φόβον, ἀλλὰ διὰ πονηρίαν καὶ αἰσχύνην τῆς 
πόλεως, ἀποκτείνουσι, . 

The slight disparaging mention οὗ Hyperbolus in this passage 
agrees with the notices of him in Aristophanes, He is the butt of 
the comic poets, and one of the hackneyed themes which Aristo- 
phanes (Clouds 551 foil.) would rather leave to others, who rejoice 
in ‘pummelling’ Hyperbolus and his mother. Yet he does not 
always maintain this high tone. Hyperbolus, if you meet him, is 
the man to get up a suit against you (Ach. 846, cp. Wasps 1007, 
Clouds 876). He has made immense sums by his rascality (διὰ 
πονηρίαν, Clouds 1066). He is a rogue of a citizen (ἄνδρα μοχθηρὸν 
πολίτην, Knights 1304), the villanous chief of the people (πονηρὸς 
προστάτης, Peace 684), at the mention of whom Peace turns away 
her face (cp. 921, 1319), and whom they only took up with because 
they had nobody better :— 

ἀλλὰ νῦν 
ἀπορῶν ὁ δῆμος ἐπιτρόπου καὶ γυμνὸς ὧν 


~ ’ Η C4 ‘ 
τοῦτον τέως τὸν ἄνδρα περιεζώσατο. 


78. 3. 


78. 5. 


78. 1. 


75. 3. 


506 THUCYDIDES. 


His mother ‘has no business to sit in the theatre by the mother of 
Lamachus’ (Thesm. 840,—probably after his murder—cp. the 
joke upon Cleophon’s mother in the Frogs 679). Finally, he is the 
protector of the distressed landlady in the world below (Frogs 570). 

Plutarch (Aristid. vii., Alcib. xiii., Nic. xi.) says that Hyperbolus 
was ostracised by a coalition between Nicias and Alcibiades, who, 
to save themselves, turned upon him. We have no means of 
proving or disproving the truth of this story. It is not necessarily 
inconsistent with the statement of Thucydides. 


καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα τοὺς Παράλους͵ ἄνδρας ᾿Αθηναίους τε καὶ ἐλευθέρους 
πάντας ἐν τῇ νηὶ πλέοντας καὶ ἀεὶ δήποτε ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ μὴ παρούσῃ 
ἐπικειμένους. 
Cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1071— 
τῇδε μέντοι θημέρᾳ μάλιστ᾽ ἐπαναγορεύεται, 
ἦν ἀποκτείνῃ τις ὑμῶν Διαγύραν τὸν Μήλιον, 
λαμβάνειν τάλαντον, ἣν τε τῶν τυράννων τίς τινα 
τῶν τεθνηκότων ἀποκτείνῃ τάλαντον λαμβάνειν. 
ἄνδρας ᾿Αθηναίους «.r.A., unlike the crews of other vessels, who 
were for the most part metics and slaves (Boeckh, Staatshaush. i. 
p. 365), these were freeborn Athenian citizens, ‘to a man.’ 


ἔπειτα μέντοι ὑπὸ τῶν διὰ μέσον κωλνθέντες καὶ διδαχθέντες, μὴ τῶν 
πολεμίων ἀντιπρώρων ἐγγὺς ἐφορμούντων ἀπολέσωσι τὰ πράγματα, ἐπαύ- 
σαντο. 

The construction οἱ διδαχθέντες is somewhat harsh if the word is 
taken with μή. On the other hand, the meaning is weak if it is left 
to stand by itself. 


νυμίζοντες οὔτε ἐκείνοις ἀποστροφὴν σωτηρίας οὔτε σφίσιν εἶναι ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐάν τε οἱ τετρακύσιοι κρατήσωσιν ἐάν τε οἱ ἐκ Μιλήτου πολέμιοι διαφθ- 
αρήσεσθαι. 

ἀποστροφὴν σωτηρίας, ‘any refuge of safety,’ i.e. ‘in which they 
could find safety.’ 

Although the Athenians are here said to feel that whether their 
enemics at home or whether their enemies abroad conquer they 
are cqually lost, in the next chapter they console one another with 
the thought that, at the worst, they can retire with their fleet and 


found a colony elsewhere. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 507 


καὶ δι᾿ ἑαυτούς τε ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ προκαθημένους καὶ πρότερον αὐτοὺς κρατεῖν 
τοῦ ἐς τὸν Πειραιᾶ ἔσπλου, καὶ νῦν ἐς τοσοῦτον καταστήσονται μὴ βου- 
λομένων σφίσι πάλιν τὴν πολιτείαν ἀποδοῦναι, ὥστε αὐτοὶ δυνατώτεροι εἶναι 
εἴργειν ἐκείνους τῆς θαλάσσης ἣ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων εἴργεσθαι. 

καταστήσονται, ‘and now the result will be,’ lit. ‘they,’ the fleet 
at Samos, ‘will come to such a point.’ Or, taking καταστήσονται 
actively (cp. vi. 83 fin. τὰ ἐνθάδε... ἀσφαλῶς καταστησόμενοι), “ Will 
bring matters to such a point.’ This is better than taking κατα- 
στήσονται Of the oligarchy at Athens, who are the subject of the 
genitive absolute immediately following. The change from the 
infinitive to the indicative gives variety and liveliness. Cp. note 
onc. 43. 3. 


οἴ ye μήτε ἀργύριον ἔτι εἶχον πέμπειν, (ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐπορίζοντο οἱ orpa- 
τιῶται.) μήτε βούλευμα χρηστόν, οὗπερ ἕνεκα πόλις στρατοπέδων κρατεῖ. 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τούτοις τοὺς μὲν ἡμαρτηκέναι τοὺς πατρίους νόμους καταλύ- 
σαντας, αὐτοὶ δὲ σώζειν καὶ ἐκείνους πειράσεσθαι προσαναγκάζειν. 

οὗπερ ἕνεκα «.t.A., either 1)* ‘for the sake of which,’ i.e. ‘ for 
the sake of giving which, ‘cities rule over armies,’ or 2) ‘in respect 
of which a city is superior to an army.’ 

καὶ ἐν τούτοις, ‘in the matter of giving counsel also,’ the plural 
referring loosely to the singular βούλευμα. The speaker means 
to say that the oligarchy had as little moral strength as they had 
material means. 


τοιαῦτα ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἐκκλησιάσαντες καὶ παραθαρσύναντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς 
καὶ τὰ τοῦ πολέμου παρεσκευάζοντο οὐδὲν ἧσσον. 

The old opposition of λόγος and ἔργον here reappears under 
a disguised form: ‘while they talked they also acted,’ ‘while they 
encouraged one another they made their preparations for war all 
the same.’ . 


ὅτε... al νῆες αὐτῶν οὐδέπω ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ εἰσιν. 

‘While the Athenian ships are not as yet in one place;’ i.e. 
before the return of Strombichides and his squadron from the 
Hellespont (c. 62). 


τὰς παρὰ Τισσαφέρνους Φοινίσσας vais μένοντες, ἄλλως ὄνομα καὶ οὐκ 
ἔργον. 


76. 5. 


76. 6. 


77. 


78. 


78. 


ma 


-~ + te ner 2 with μένοντες, or 2)* with ὄνομα : in 
so: wtlvtuemt to μάταιον ὄνομα. Cp. Eur. Troades, 


. -tcnuy wAAws, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερτάτονς Φρυγῶν. 


ὑπ mre ὁ Supos τῆς ἠπείρου πρὸς τὴν Μυκάλην. 
"κων. ‘11 che direction of Mycale.’ 


=nseueyor™m καὶ τὸν Στρομβιχίδην ἐκ τοῦ “Ἑλλησπόντου 


. - > ὗν αυσὶν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αβύδου ἀφικομέναις προσ βοηθήσειν. 
Ων -e cenitive with ἐπί after a verb denoting arrival 


aut regular, is sufficiently defended by καταπλεύ- 
» iveasny, ἴσα, and ἀφικνοῦνται ἐπὶ Θράκης, i. 60 fin. 


moms treaty ἀθρόαις ταῖς ναυσὶν οὐκ ἀξιόμαχοι νομίζοντες 


aes, Mere TCL 
> .chaanys ταῖς ναυσίν May apply cither 1)* to the 

~~ Ὁ 2' to the Athenians; in the first case they 

‘+; scvempaniment, in the second case a dative, to 

vat ἀᾷωμαχοι OF With ἀντανήγοντο, 

. a ελυποννησίων αὗται νῆες dmipara ἐς τὸ πέλαγος, 
» a τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους, χειμασθεῖσαι, καὶ at μὲν Δήλου 
sae.uy aeTd Κλεάρχου, καὶ ὕστερον πάλιν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐς 

των fe curd γὴν αὖθις ἐς τὸν “Ἑλλήσπυντον κομισθεὶς 

ew ww S\.g0u τοῦ Meyapéws στρατηγοῦ δέκα ἐς τὸν ᾿Βλλήσ- 

Lota ue A yuzrsoy ἀφιστᾶσι. 

νας of the sentence (καὶ ai μὲν... χειμασθεῖσαιν is 

Ὁ Sauses, and the finite verb (ἀφιστᾶσι), of which 


. 
“Ά, 


ἐς ased in the first part of the sentence, instead of 
i ilies only to the second of them. The change 
οὐκ κα by the parenthesis Κλέαρχος... ἦρχεν. The 


κὰν been regular if Thucydides had omitted καί 


ew: 


od, instead of καὶ ὕστερον πάλιν ἐλθοῦσαι, had 


ten 2 


wher \coy, 


we? 


me “τὴ Σύμῳ, καὶ μάλιστα Θρασύβοιλωος͵ [καὶ] ἀεί τε τῆς 


«ον. anes. ἐπειδὴ μετέστησε τὰ πράγματα, ὥστε κατάγειν 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 509 


"᾿Αλκιβιάδην, καὶ τέλος ἐπ᾿ ἐκκλησίας ἔπεισε τὸ πλῆθος τῶν στρατιωτῶν, 81. 1. 
καὶ ψηφισαμένων αὐτῶν ᾿Αλκιβιάδῃ κάθοδον καὶ ἄδειαν, πλεύσας ὡς τὸν 
Τισσαφέρνην κατῆγεν ἐς τὴν Σάμον τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην, | 

For αὐτῆς all the MSS. except Vat. and Cl. read αὐτοῦ or αὑτοῦ, 
αὑτοῦ, ‘ his own opinion,’ is probably the true reading. 

Most editors, including Bekker and Poppo, omit καί, whieh is 
found in numerous MS8., though not in Vat., before ἀεί, and 
some insert it where it is not found (except in one inferior MS., D) 
before ἐπειδή. 

1) Though somewhat awkward, «at ἀεί re gives a sufficient 
sense. καί before ἀεί is to be connected with καὶ ψηφισαμένων, .. 
κατῆγε below, and τέ after ἀεί with καὶ τέλος én’ ἐκκλησίας. ἀεί 
corresponds to τέλος, ‘he had always thought, and at last he held 
an assembly and proposed,’ etc. 

The structure of the clauses is in any case irregular, τέ---καί 
joining a participle and a finite verb, ἀεί re ἐχόμενος... καὶ ἔπεισε. 
Cp. note on i. 9. 3.§ 5. The main idea of the sentence is that 
Thrasybulus persuaded the multitude and brought Alcibiades to 
Samos. But this thought is complicated by the further thought, 
that Thrasybulus had ever since the overthrow of the oligarchs 
entertained the intention of restoring Alcibiades, which he at last 
persuaded the soldiers to entertain in an assembly. Hence the 
construction of the latter words is ambiguous, the clause τέλος... 
τῶν στρατιωτῶν looking backwards to ἐχόμενος and forward to κατῆγε, 
and the attraction of the latter word having led to the substitution 
of the finite verb ἔπεισε for the participle πείσας. 

2)* If this explanation appears too involved, the only alter- 
native is to omit καί, And the confusion of readings in this passage 
(see Poppo, ed. maj.) is a reason for suspecting a corruption of 
the text. 


γενομένης δὲ ἐκκλησίας τὴν τε ἰδίαν ξυμφορὰν τῆς φυγῆς ἐπῃτιάσατο καὶ 81. 2. 
ἀνωλοφύρατο ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, καὶ περὶ πολιτικῶν πολλὰ εἰπὼν ἐς ἔλπίδας γε 
αὐτοὺς οὐ μικρὰς τῶν τε μελλόντων καθίστη K.T.X. 

Bekker, following the Vatican, omits γέ, But may it not be sup- 
posed to throw into the passage a shade of irony? ‘there was 
certainly no lack of hopes which he offered them,’ or, ‘as far as 


18. 


Ἴ9. 2. 


19. 3. 


80. 1. 


80. 3. 


81. 1. 


508 THUCYDIDES. 


ἄλλως may be joined either 1) with μένοντε 
the latter case it is equivalent to μάταιον ὄνο 

476,— 
οὐκ ἀριθμὸν ἄλλως, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερτάτουν 


διέχει δὲ ὀλίγον ταύτῃ ἡ Σάμος τῆς ἠπείρου π. 
πρὸς τὴν Μυκάλην, ‘in the direction of M 


καὶ dpa... προσεδέχοντο καὶ τὸν Στρομ 
σφίσι ταῖς ἐκ τῆς Χίου ναυσὶν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αβύδου ἐ 

ἐπ' ᾿Αβύδου, The genitive with ἐπί 
at a place, though irregular, is suf! 
σαντες ἐπὶ τῆς Μυκάλης, infra, and ἀφι» 


οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι ἐπειδὴ ἀθρόαις 7° 
εἶναι οὐκ ἀντανήγοντο. 

The words ἀθρόαις ταῖς vavo 
Pelogonnesians, or 2) to the 
are an ablative of accompani 


be taken either with ἀξιόμαχοι. 7 
“τα 
καὶ αἱ μὲν τῶν Πελοποννη: τι ὁ 
ὅπως λάθοιεν ἐν τῷ πλῷ τοὺς ἡ τα αὶ 
λαβόμεναι αἱ πλείου μετὰ -- 
Μίλητον, (Κλέαρχος δὲ κατ 
ἦρχεν, αἱ δὲ μετὰ Ἑλίξου  - PEF “τὸ 
ποντὸν διασωθεῖσαι Βυζάντι. eure C 
The main subject « MS TEe 
distributed into two cl: av Se. τὰ by 
an expectation is rais, .» “we τοὶ αὐτο 
applying to both, ap; ~ eth the 


of construction is ai”. -- πῇ saseests, 

sentence would have _ 2. -=-Y=* with « 
after χειμασθεῖσαι, » 

written ὕστερο πῶ ὀ ..ὉΦὉ» Trectovnevos 

ω meres, τολλῷ ὃ 

οἱ δὲ προεστῶτα" ee ro τὰ 


αὐτῆς γνώμης μμεὶ ~~. meee πολλῷ 


512 THUCYDIDES. 


83. 3. χαρίζεσθαι καὶ συγχωρεῖν ἔταττον of dpyaiot’ μάρτυς Κρατῖνος ἐν Χείρωνι 
λέγων τὴν μουσικὴν ἀκορέστους ἐπιφέρειν ὀργὰς βροτοῖς σώφροσιν. 


84. 3. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὡς εἶδον, οἷα δὴ ναῦται, ὥρμησαν ἐκραγέντες 
ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Αστύοχον, Sore βάλλειν’ ὁ δὲ προϊδὼν καταφεύγει ἐπὶ βωμόν τινα 
οὐ μέντοι ἐβλήθη γε, ἀλλὰ διελύθησαν an’ ἀλλήλων, 

οὐ μέντοι may be referred to the general sense of the preceding 
words, or, more particularly, to ὥστε βάλλειν, 


84. 4. καὶ τοὺς évdvras φύλακας αὐτοῦ ἐκβάλλουσιν. 
Either 1) ‘the guards who were there inside ;’ or 2) ‘the guards 
of Tissaphernes who were inside.’ 


85. 2. ἔξυνέπεμψε δὲ καὶ Τισσαφέρνης αὐτῷ πρεσβευτὴν τῶν παρ᾽ éavrov... 
κατηγορήσοντα τῶν τε Μιλησίων περὶ τοῦ φρουρίον καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἅμα 
ἀπολογησόμενον, εἰδὼς τούς τε Μιλησίους πορευομένους ἐπὶ καταβοῆ τῇ 
αὐτοῦ μάλιστα καὶ τὰν “Eppoxpdrny μετ᾽ αὐτῶν x.1.d. 

Tissaphernes sent to accuse the Milesians, ‘he knowing that 
the Milesians,’ i.e. some of them, the whole city being here as 
elsewhere put for the representatives of the city, ‘were going to 
accuse him:’ cp. i, 31 med, ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς (scil. τοῖς Κερκυραίοις) ἔλ- 
θοῦσιν ὡς τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ξυμμάχους γενέσθαι, ... of δὲ Κορίνθιοι πυθόμενοι 


ταῦτα ἦλθον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας πρεσβευσύμενοι. 


85.3. ἔχθρα δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἦν αὐτῷ ἀεί ποτε περὶ τοῦ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀποδόσεως. 
πρὸς αὐτόν refers to Hermocrates, αὐτῷ to Tissaphernes. 


85. 3. κατηγόρει ἄλλα τε καὶ ὡς χρήματά more αἰτήσας αὐτὸν καὶ ov τυχὼν 

τὴν ἔχθραν οἱ πρόθοιτο. 

προτίθεσθαι ἔχθραν, 1)* ‘to entertain or conceive hatred,’ lit. to put 
before, or propose to, oneself. Or 2)* ‘to display hatred,’ cp. iii. 
64 fin. ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκείνων κακῷ ἀνδραγαθίαν προὔθεσθε. 

These words do not prove Hermocrates to have been the author 
of the quarrel (Poppo, ed. maj. from Kriiger), since they only 
contain the insinuation of Tissaphernes. 


86.3. οἱ δ᾽ ἀπήγγελλον ὡς οὔτε ἐπὶ διαφθορᾷ τῆς πόλεως ἡ μετάστασις γένοιτο, 


ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ, οὔθ᾽ ἵνα τοῖς πολεμίοις παραδοθῇ" ἐξεῖναι γάρ, ὅτε ἐσέβαλον 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 513 


ἤδη σφῶν ἀρχόντων, τοῦτο moijoat’ τῶν τε πεντακισχιλίων ὅτι πάντες ἐν BB. 3. 
τῷ μέρει μεθέξουσιν. 

Either 1)* ‘that all should in turn share in the body of 5000, 
though how this was to be accomplished is not explained. Or 
2) ‘that all the 5000 should in turn have their share,’ i.e. in the 
government or in the body of 400; to which it was afterwards 
promised that they should be elected in turn. Cp. c. 93 med. λέγοντες 
τούς τε πεντακισχιλίους ἀποφανεῖν, καὶ ἐκ τούτων ἐν μέρει, ἣ ἂν τοῖς mevra- 
κισχιλίοις δοκῇ, τοὺς τετρακοσίους ἔσεσθαι. μεθέξουσιν, Scil. τῆς πόλεως͵ 
which is easily supplied from the context. 


καὶ ἐδόκει ᾿Αλκιβιάδης πρῶτος τύτε καὶ οὐδενὸς ἔλασσον τὴν πόλιν 86. 4. 
ὠφελῆσαι᾽ ὡρμημένων γὰρ τῶν ἐν Σάμῳ ᾿Αθηναίων πλεῖν ἐπὶ σφᾶς αὐτούς, 
ἐν ᾧ σαφέστατα ᾿Ιωνίαν καὶ Ἑλλήσποντον εὐθὺς εἶχον οἱ πολέμιοι, κωλυτὴς 
γενέσθαι. 

ἐδόκει ὠφελῆσαι, ‘appeared to have benefited.’ This is Thucydides’ 
impersonal way of expressing his own opinion. Cp. note on ii. 
65. 7. The sense seems to require some still stronger word to be 
supplied from ἐδόκει with κωλυτὴς yever Oat, ΞΞ-Ξ κωλνυτὴς γενόμενος δῆλος ἦν. 

Either 1)* reading πρῶτος, with most MSS., ‘ Alcibiades was in 
the first rank of benefactors.’ Or 2) accepting πρῶτον, the reading 
of the Vatican and a few other MSS., ‘then for the first time 
Alcibiades did good service to the state,’ meanirig that he never 
did'so before. The sense is in favour of 1)*, the Greek of 2). 
Against 2) it may be urged that the words ‘for the first time’ would 
be inappropriate to the case of Alcibiades, who had already done 
his country many services, 6. g. by securing the alliance of Argos, 
and by setting Tissaphernes against the Peloponnesians. Nor is it 
likely that Thucydides, who abstains elsewhere from condemning 
him (cp. especially the remarkable passage in which he is described 
rather as sinned against than sinning, vi. 15), should have passed 
this summary sentence in a single word. 

On the other hand, it is not clear that the word πρῶτος standing 
alone, and still less when followed by rére, can be used to signify 
‘in an eminent degree.’ 

εὐθὺς εἶχον. The indicative without ἄν expresses the certainty of 
the fact. ‘In which case they had undoubtedly been masters of 

VOL. 11. L | 


86. 9. 


87. 3. 


87. 3. 


514 THUCYDIDES. 


. Ionia and the Hellespont,’ cp. note on vi. 55. 3, and Lycurg. c. 


Leocr. 23, εἰ μὲν οὖν ζῶν ἐτύγχανεν ὁ ᾿Αμύντας, ἐκεῖνον αὐτὸν παρειχόμην᾽ 


νυνὶ δὲ ὑμῖν καλὼ τοὺς συνειδότας, 


ἀφίκοντο δὲ οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι μετὰ τῶν Παράλων, οἱ τότε ἐτάχθησαν ἐν τῇ 
στρατιώτιδι νηὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων περιπλεῖν Εὔβοιαν, καὶ ἄγοντες ᾿Αθη- 
γαίων ἐς Λακεδαίμονα ἀπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων πεμπτοὺς πρέσβεις, Λαισποδίαν 
καὶ ᾿Αριστοφῶντα καὶ Μελησίαν, [ot] ἐπειδὴ ἐγένοντο πλέοντες κατ᾽ “Apyos, 
τοὺς μὲν πρέσβεις ξυλλαβόντες τοῖς ᾿Αργείοις παρέδοσαν x.1.d. 

πέμπουσι, the reading of the great majority of MSS., is indefen- 
sible, unless πέμπουσι πρέσβεις can be taken as a dativus commodi 
agreeing with a subject to be supplied from ἀπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων, 
‘conducting envoys from the Four Hundred for the Four Hundred 
who were sending them.’ But this is harsh, and it is better either 
to omit the word (with one good MS., C.) or to read πεμπόντων, 
or, with two or three MSS. and Bekker, πεμπτούς. 

οἱ ἐπειδή κτλ. Either we must omit of, or the construction of the 
sentence is irregular, of being put as if τῶν τότε ταχθέντων καὶ ἀγόντων, 
NOt of τότε ἐτάχθησαν καὶ ἄγοντες, had preceded. of may very likely 
have been inserted by a copyist from an imperfect apprehension of 
the structure of the sentence. 


οἱ δέ, iva τοὺς Φοίνικας προαγαγὼν ἐς τὴν Ασπενδον ἐκχρηματίσαιτο ages 
καὶ γὰρ ὡς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν ἔμελλε χρήσεσθαι. 

καὶ ὥς, ‘in any case,’ see note on iii. 33. 2, not, ‘although he had 
brought them so far.’ 


ἄλλοι δ᾽, ὡς καταβοῆς ἕνεκα τῆς ἐς Λακεδαίμονα, τὸ λέγεσθαι ὡς οὐκ 
ἀδικεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ σαφῶς οἴχεται ἐπὶ τὰς vais ἀληθῶς πεπληρωμέναςρ. 

The acc. τὸ λέγεσθαι is ἃ further explanation of καταβοῆς ἕνεκα, and 
seems to be dependent upon some general notion, gathered from 
the whole sentence, of the purpose or idea with which Tissaphernes 
went to Aspendus. ‘Some thought that he went on account of 
the complaints which had reached Lacedaemon, in the hope that it 
might be said of him that he was honest.’ 

More commonly the genitive would follow, and the alteration of 
τό into τοῦ has been adopted by Poppo and other editors. But 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. δΥἢ 


this seems unnecessary, since the idea of purpose may be expressed 87. 3. 
by a simple acc. of the remoter object, ‘touching its being said.’ | 
Cp. note on ii. 87. 5. τῷ is also read, on some MS. authority ; 
but gives no good sense. _ 

καταβοή cannot possibly be taken in a neutral sense (Classen). 
Cp. ς. 85 med. ἐπὶ καταβοῇ τῇ αὐτοῦ μάλιστα, likewise referring to 
Tissaphernes, i. 67 init., 73 init., 115 imit, v. 45 fin. 


ἐπεί, εἴγε ἐβουλήθη διαπολεμῆσαι, ἐπιφανὲς δήπου οὐκ ἐνδοιαστῶν. 87. 4. 
The expression is cramped. The comma should be placed 
after, not before, διαπολεμῆσαι. Some clause such as ὅτι διεπολέμησεν 
ἄν, OF διαπολεμῆσαι ἄν, has to be supplied from διαποχεμῆσαι after 
ἐπιφανές. ἐπιφανείς has been ingeniously conjectured by Reiske. 


καὶ 6 μὲν ἄρας εὐθὺ τῆς Φασήλιδοφ καὶ Καύνου ἄνω τὸν πλοῦν ἐποιεῖτο, 88. 

There is.a slight geographical inaccuracy in the order of the 
places mentioned: for in going from Samos to Aspendus Alci- 
biades would have come first to Caunus and then to Phaselis. Cp. 
infra. c. 108 init., where a corresponding inaccuracy occurs in the 
description of Alcibiades’ return voyage. And sce Introduction on 
the Geography of Thucydides. 


καὶ ξυνίσταντό τε ἤδη καὶ τὰ πράγματα διεμέμφοντο, ἔχοντες ἡγεμόνας 89. 2. 
τῶν πάνυ στρατηγῶν τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἐν ἀρχαῖς ὄντων, οἷον 
Θηραμένην τε τὸν ᾿Αγνῶνος καὶ ᾿Αριστοκράτην τὸν Σκελλίου, καὶ ἄλλους, of 
μετέσχον μὲν ἐν πρώτοις τῶν πραγμάτων, φοβούμενοι δ᾽, ὧς ἔφασαν, τό Te 
ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ στράτευμα καὶ τὸν ᾿Αλκιβιάδην σπουδῇ πάνυ, τούς τε ἐς τὴν 
Λακεδαίμονα πρεσβευομένους, μή τι ἄνευ τῶν πλειόνων κακὸν δράσωσι τὴν 
πόλιν, ou τὸ ἀπαλλάξειν τοῦ ἄγαν ἐς ὀλίγους ἐλθεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς πεντακι- 
σχιλίους ἔργῳ καὶ μὴ ὀνόματι χρῆναι ἀποδεικνύναι, καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν ἰσαιτέραν 
καθιστάναι. 

τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἐν ἀρχαῖς ὄντων is to be taken: closely with 
τῶν πάνυ στρατηγῶν, ‘the very generals who were of the party of the 
oligarchy and members of the government.’ See note on viii. 1. r. 
᾿ πάνυ, though attracted to στρατηγῶν, really belongs to ὄντων. 

The sentence which follows, φοβούμενοι δέ κιτιλ. is in strange 
confusion. It may be one of those which has not received the 

Ll] 2 


“uaing, with nearly all the 


τα TpETBevopevors, We Musi 


7. aMerally, Sand Alcibiades, of 

~  .7ud), they were sending,’ ie. 

-ssadors (c. 71 fin., 86 fin.: cp. 

~. .. they were despatched without 

εἰς oligarchy, the city might be 

Seing (as they professed) not to 

J... vor, Sto avoid falling under an 
..cught that the 5000 ought to be 

. Mame,’ etc. Such appears to be 

~ +... 7assage. But there still remain many 


- ose fitiitvy not τὸ ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ στράτευμα, but 
“ww praessed a fear of the democracy at 
tz 22 democracy themselves, they did not 

aces, Which they did really feel, for che 
oni of the chapter :---σαφέστατα & a: τοὺς 

Sor he might become 2 Jangerscs rival 


shserved a) that τὸ τ ἢ fis rmitted 


εν is redundant: tics. howevir is an 


..sf 1 τὸ may be removed by suzr-tsins 


ταδί ov. 26. 2. ὁ) The s:nse 
~ στον ΚΝ agree with the Greek. But 


ἐλ ta ‘send the embassy. just 
~ ~ 2 ac put tor the whole state (see 
Jed... τὺ ἀπαλλάξει» may be 


τις Sonience. ek pressing 


WV Ave 2 cep. τὸ λέγεσθαι, 

ΘΚ Tage saint. on™ to get rid 

DY. THe again ie construction 

_ ooo Us \esorres, Or μομ. πεν] has to be 


Janine 5000 should be established.’ 
meee In one fair (Ε) and two bad MSS, 
ay ΟΣ taking the passage offers which 
>. wnomdlies: * Fearing, as they said, the 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 517 


army at Samos, and in good earnest afraid of Alcibiades, fearing 89. 2. 
too the ambassadors sent to Lacedaemon’ (or, in accordance with 
the more common meaning of the middle πρεσβεύεσθαι, ‘those who 
were sending ambassadors to Lacedaemon,’ i.e. the extreme oli- 
garchical party), ‘lest they should do some injury to the state if 
unauthorized by the majority, they professed, not indeed that they 
meant to deliver themselves from coming to an extreme oligarchy, 
but that the 5000 ought to be established in reality and not in 
name,’ etc. Adopting this interpretation, we must construe the 
clause οὐ τὸ ἀπαλλάξειν κιτιλ. as dependant on ἔφασαν understood ; 
the sentence continuing as if, not φοβούμενοι δ᾽ ὡς ἔφασαν, but φοβού- 
μενοι δ᾽ ἔφασαν, had preceded. 

Still the presence of the article before ἀπαλλάξειν creates a diffi- 
culty which might be overcome by reading, instead of οὐ τό, οὔτοι 
(Poppo); three good MSS. having οὐ τῶι. 

The occurrence of so many harsh expressions, and so many 
changes of construction, leads to the conclusion that we are 
analysing the ideas of Thucydides, not in their final form, but as 
they first occurred to him and were roughly put down. 


ἦν δὲ τοῦτο μὲν σχῆμα πολιτικὸν τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῖς κιτιλ. 89. 2. 
Either 1)* ‘this was the constitutional pretence which they put 
forward, or 2) ‘this was the form of government which they 
upheld in words; but in fact,’ etc. Cp. infra c. 91 med. διαβολὴ 
τοῦ λόγου. | 


πάντες yap αὐθημερὸν ἀξιοῦσιν οὐχ ὅπως ἴσοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρῶτος 89. 3. 
αὐτὸς ἕκαστος εἶναι ἐκ δὲ δημοκρατίας αἱρέσεως γιγνομένης, ῥᾷον τὰ ἀπο- 
βαίνοντα ὡς οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐλασσούμενός τις φέρει. 

ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων has been referred 1) to things, 2) to persons. 

According to 1) the meaning would be that a man is less 
annoyed at a defeat under a democratical form of government 
because he has not failed in an equally matched contest, but has 
been overpowered by the force of the multitude. In a similar spirit 
Thucydides argues elsewhere that violence is more tolerable than 
specious injustice (i. 77 med.). Still the sentiment is a paradox. 

According to 2) ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων would mean, ‘on the part of his 


89. 4. 


90. I. 


90. 


4. 


518 THUCYDIDES. 


equals,’ nearly =tsd τῶν ὁμοίων. Cp. i. 141 init, where τῶν ὁμοίων 
is also masculine, τὴν γὰρ αὐτὴν δύναται δούλωσιν ἢ τε μεγίστη καὶ 
ἐλαχίστη δικαίωσις ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων πρὸ δίκης τοῖς πέλας ἐπιτασσομένη. 
The argument would be that in an oligarchy, which is a small 
body, every one is his neighbour’s equal and rival, and thinks that 
he has a right to an equal share of office and power. But in a 
democracy there is no such narrow notion of equality. Though 
politically they have the same rights, the citizens know that they 
are not really equal, and do not consider exclusion from oftice as 
@ personal affront. See note in Grote, Part II. ch. Ixii. 

ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων may be taken, either after ἐλασσούμενος, as above, 


or after ra ἀποβαίνοντα. 


οἱ δὲ τῶν τετρακοσίων μάλιστα ἐναντίοι ὄντες τῷ τοιούτῳ εἴδει K.T.A. 

τῷ τοιούτῳ εἴδει, 501}. to the democracy, supplied from προστάτης 
cou δήμου above, or from the tenor of the preceding words: cp. 
note on iii. 62. 2, ἐν οἵῳ εἴδει, ‘under what form of government.’ 


χηλὴ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ Πειραιῶς ἡ Herimrera, καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτὴν εὐθὺς ὁ ἔσπλους 
ἐστίν. ἐτειχίζετο οὖν οὕτω ξὺν τῷ πρότερον πρὸς ἤπειρον ὑπάρχοντι τείχει, 
ὥστε καθεζομένων ἐς αὐτὸ ἀνθρώπων ὀλίγων ἄρχειν τοῦ γε ἔσπλου. ἐπὶ 
αὐτὸν γὰρ τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ στύώματι τοῦ λιμένος στενοῦ ὄντος τὸν ἕτερον πύργον 


> o , Ly LY Ld ‘ ᾿ » 4 A 8 ~ 
ἐτελευτα τό τε παλαιὸν τὸ πρὸς ἤπειρον καὶ TO ἐντὸς TO καινὸν τεῖχος τεῖχι- 


. ὥμενον πρὸς θάλασσαν. διῳκοδόμησαν δὲ καὶ στοίν, ἧπερ ἣν μεγίστη καὶ 


ἐγγύτατα τούτου εὐθὺς ἐχομένη ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ, καὶ ἦρχον αὐτοὶ αὐτῆς, ἐς 
ἣν καὶ τὸν σῖτον ἠνάγκαζον πάντας τὸν ὑπάρχοντά τε καὶ τὸν ἐσπλέοντα 
ἐξαιρεῖσθαι καὶ ἐντεῦθεν προαιροῦντας πωλεῖν. 

τοῦ ye €omdov. The reading, if retained, must be explained as 
follows :—‘ The oligarchs were liable to be attacked from the city 
as well as from the sea: a handful of men could protect at any 
rate the entrance to the harbour, if not the approach from the city.’ 
The MSS. vary between ré and yé; a few omit both. 

The oligarchs had several objects in fortifying Eetionea. They 
wanted a) to command the entrance into the harbour and secure 
a landing-place for Peloponnesian troops; δ) to cut off the landing- 
place from the city, for they were more afraid of attack from within 
than from without; ¢) to have at their service the stores which 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 51g 


were collected in that part of the Piraeus. Now the outer wall of 90. 5. 
the Piraeus on the north side ended in the promontory of Eetionea; 
between this wall and the harbour was a narrow strip of ground 
partly covered by a warehouse, στοά, probably running down to 
the water, in which merchants deposited their goods. The oligarchs 
built a second line of wall facing the harbour and ending in the 
same point as the old line of wall. This wall would serve as a 
protection to Peloponnesian soldiers when landed. They then 
built a wall either abutting on or cutting across the orod, and form- 
ing the base of the triangle of which the two other walls formed 
the sides. The two new walls together would protect the στοά, 
which was wholly or partially inside them. 

ἐγγύτατα τούτον εὐθὺς ἐχομένη is parallel to μεγίστη, lit. ‘the largest 
and the most nearly adjoining the new wall, which it closely ad- 
joined ;" ἐχομένη goes both with ἐγγύτατα and with εὐθύς. τούτου, 
501}. rod καινοῦ ceixous, διοικοδομήσαντες, 1) running the wall through 
the hall or ered; or 2)* merely cutting off the crea from the city ; 
Cp. διατειχίζω, and iv. 69 init. ἀρξάμενοι δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους ὃ εἶχον καὶ 
διοικοδομήσαντες τὸ πρὸς Μεγαρέας. 

Cp. with the whole account the words of Theramenes, Xen. 
Hell. ii. 3. 46, ἐπεὶ δέ ye ἐκεῖνοι μὲν (scil. ol Λακεδαιμόνιοι) οὐδὲν ἀνίεσαν, 
οἱ δὲ ἀμφὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλην καὶ Μελάνθιον καὶ ᾿Αρίσταρχον, στρατηγοῦντες 
Φινεροὶ ἐγένοντο ἐπὶ τῷ χώματι ἔρυμα τειχίζοντες, ἐς ὃ ἐβούλοντο τοὺς 
πολεμίους δεξάμενοι ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἑτέροις τὴν πόλιν ποιήσασθαι, εἰ 


ταῦτ᾽ αἰσθανόμενος ἐγὼ διεκώλυσα, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι προδότην εἶναι τῶν φίλων ; 


ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους ἐσαγαγόμενοι ἄνευ τειχῶν καὶ νεῶν ξυμβῆναι 91, 3. 
καὶ ὁπωσοῦν τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἔχειν, εἰ τοῖς γε σώμασι σφῶν ἄδεια ἔσται. 

καὶ ὁπωσοῦν goes with ἄνευ τειχῶν καὶ νεῶν. ‘They were ready to 
agree that the city should be left without walls and ships, and in any 
condition whatsoever, if only their lives were guaranteed to them.’ 


ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ Φρύνιχος... πληγεὶς ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρὸς τῶν περιπόλων τινὸς ἐξ ἐπι- OB. 2. 
βουλῆς ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ πληθούσῃ καὶ οὐ πολὺ ἀπὸ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου ἀπελθὼν 
ἀπέθανε παραχρῆμα, καὶ ὁ μὲν πατάξας διέφυγεν, ὁ δὲ ξυνεργός, ᾿Αργεῖος 
ἄνθρωπος, ληφθεὶς καὶ βασανιζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων x.7.A. 

The story of the assassination οἵ Phrynichus is narrated by the 
orators Lysias and Lycurgus, and also by Plutarch. Lysias, c. 


520 THUCYDIDES. 


92. 2. Agoratum (xiii) 76-78, asserts as a well-known fact that two 
foreigners, Thrasybulus of Calydon and Apollodorus of Megara, 
conspired against Phrynichus: that they came upon him when he 
was walking (βαδίζοντι), and that Thrasybulus struck and slew him. 

At the time they escaped, and after the overthrow of the 400 
were made Athenian citizens by a decree of the people: their 
names were inscribed on a column, and to this column he appeals 
against the claims of Agoratus, who pretended to have been the 
author of the deed. See Inscription mentioned infra. 

The tale is told over again by Lycurgus (c. Leocratem, 113— 
117), though with some differences. The names of the assassins 
are the same, but, according to Lycurgus, Phrynichus was assassin- 
ated by night, ‘near the fountain which is in the willow beds.’ 
The assassins were seized and imprisoned, but liberated by the 
people, and, on the motion of Critias, Phrynichus was condemned 
as a traitor and his bones exhumed and cast beyond the border, 
Aristarchus and Alexicles who defended him being executed. 

It is possible that Critias, who is said once to have been ἃ 
democrat, cp. Xen. Hell. ii 3. 36, may have been the accuser of 
Phrynichus. But we are told by Thucydides that Alexicles escaped 
to Decelea, and Aristarchus to Oenoé, which he betrayed to the 
Boeotians (viii. 98). On the other hand, the words of Xenophon 
(Hell. i. 7. 28), though not free from ambiguity, imply that Aris- 
tarchus was afterwards captured and brought to trial: δεενὰ δ᾽ 
ἂν ποιήσαιτε, εἰ ᾿Αριστάρχῳ μέν, πρότερον τὸν δῆμον καταλύοντι, εἶτα δὲ 
Οἰνόην προδιδόντι Θηβαίοις, πολεμίοις οὖσιν, ἔδοτε ἡμέραν ἀπολογήσασθαι 
ἡ ἐβούλετο, καὶ τἄλλα κατὰ τὸν νόμον προὔθετο" τοὺς δὲ στρατηγοὺς... τῶν 
αὐτῶν τούτων ἀποστερήσετε. 

Once more the tale is told by Plutarch (Alcib. xxv. fin.), chiefly 
from an imperfect recollection of Thucydides. He cuts the nar- 
rative short, and, without noticing the part taken by Phrynichus in 
the oligarchical movement, says that he was slain by Hermon, one 
of the Peripoli (a name which occurs in Thucydides in the same 
chapter, viii. 92.5, but in another connection: he was in command 
of the Peripoli at Munychia, and took part in the arrest of Alexicles, 
and is confused by Plutarch with the assassin). He says that 
Phrynichus after his death was condemned for treachery, apparently 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 521 


his treachery in proposing to betray the Athenian fleet to Astyo- 92. 2. 
chus, and that his assassins were honoured with a crown. 

The narrative is worthless as historical evidence, but not without 
interest as showing the manner in which error and confusion grew 
up in the mind of Plutarch. 

A somewhat uncertain light is thrown upon the statement of 
Lysias by an inscription (Kirchhoff, C.I.A. no. 59).recording a 
decree passed by the senate and people of Athens in the archon- 
ship of Glaucippus, 410-409, a year or two after the murder of 
Phrynichus. By this decree Zhrasydulus is praised and crowned 
for public services, and apparently the rights of citizenship are 
conferred upon him. The names of Agorafus, Comon, Simos, and 
Philinus are to be inscribed as those of public benefactors on a 
column of stone, and they are to receive rights of ἔγκτησις and οἴκησις 
at Athens. Further, there appears to be a reference to certain per- 
sons who had received bribes in connection with a decree respecting 
Apoll{odorus|; but this part of the inscription is very imperfect. 

Lysias in the passage cited above a) denies that the grant of 
citizenship to Agoratus is to be found on the column, and then 4) 
asserts that certain persons (who are not mentioned, though at this 
place Bekker notes a lacuna in the MS.) got their names forged 
on the column as benefactors. It would seem probable that this 
is the inscription in which the name of Agoratus was fraudulently 
inserted. If so, it would be curious that an inscription, containing 
a condemnation of corruption, should afford an example of it. See 
Kirchhoff, Monastb. d. Berl. Acad. 1861, p. 601: Bergk. Z. ἢ 
Alterthumsw. Dec. 1847. 


τότε δὴ οὐδενὸς γεγενημένου ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ νεωτέρου x.7.X. 92. 2. 
The Argive having made no confession, no one was arrested or 
executed by the oligarchs; hence Theramenes and his associates 
were emboldened to proceed. ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ‘in consequence of the 
affair.’ 


ἅμα yap καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Aas αἱ νῆες ἤδη περιπεπλευκυῖαι καὶ δρμισάμεναι ἐς 98. 3. 
τὴν ᾿Επίδαυρον τὴν Αἴγιναν καταδεδραμήκεσαν᾽ καὶ οὐκ ἔφη ὁ Θηραμένης 
εἰκὸς εἶναι, ἐπ’ Εὔβοιαν πλεούσας αὐτὰς ἐς Αἴγιναν κατακολπίσαι καὶ πάλιν 


ἐν ᾿Επιδαύίρῳ ὁρμεῖν, εἰ μὴ παρακληθεῖσαι ἥκοιεν «7.2, 


82. 3. 


92. 4. 


92. 4. 


92. 6. 


92. 6. 


522 THUCYDIDES. 


It is not clear whether the Lacedaemonians first ravaged Aegina 
and then put into port at Epidaurus, or whether they first anchored 
at Epidaurus, and then ravaged Aegina, returning again to Epi- 
daurus. The first explanation agrees best with the expression ἐς 
Αἰγίνην κατακολπίσαι καὶ πάλιν ἐν ᾿Επιδαύρῳ ὁρμεῖν, and is consistent 
with the tenses ὁρμεσάμενοι and κατεδεδραμήκεσαν (not κατέδραμον). 
The crews, which had now cast anchor at Epidauras, had pre- 
viously ravaged Aegina. 


τέλος δέ, πολλῶν Kal στασιωτικῶν λόγων καὶ ὑποψιῶν πρυσγενομένων, καὶ 
ἔργῳ ἤδη ἥπτοντο τῶν πραγμάτων. 

The subject of ἥπτοντο is ‘Theramenes and his party,’ to be 
supplied from ὁ Θηραμένης ἤδη . . . ἦσαν ὁμογνώμονες, SUPTA. 


ἐν ols καὶ ‘Aptoroxparns ἦν ταξιαρχῶν καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φυλὴν ἔχων. 

φυλακήν is the reading of the majority of MSS., but φυλή, an- 
swering to ταξιαρχῶν, which is found in three good (CL, Ven., Laur.) 
and one inferior MS. (Gr.), is required by the sense. 

The two words are again confused in vi. 100 init. of μὲν Supaxd- 
σιοι φυλὴν μίαν καταλιπόντες φύλακα τοῦ οἰκοδομήματος, where One good 
(Laur.) and three inferior MSS. read φυλακήν. And once more, in 
vi. 101. 5, φυλή (Duker) must be substituted for φυλακή, the 
reading of the MSS., which has no meaning. 


ὡς δὲ ἐσηγγέλθη τοῖς τετρακοσίοις (ἔτυχον δὲ ἐν τῷ βουλευτηρίῳ Evynad- 
μενοι), εὐθύς, πλὴν ὅσοις μὴ βουλομένοις ταῦτα ἦν, ἑτοῖμοι ἦσαν ἐς τὰ 
ὅπλα ἰέναι. 

ἐς τὰ ὅπλα ἰέναι, literally, ‘ go to their arms,’ i.e. to the place where 
their arms were piled. So § 8 infra, ἐπὶ ra ὅπλα φερομένους. Cp. 
ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις, Vil. 28 init., vill. 69 init. 


καὶ παραλαβὼν eva τῶν στρατηγῶν, ὅστις ἦν αὐτῷ ὁμογνώμων, ἐχώρει ἐς 
τὸν Πειραιῇ. 

ὅστις iS found in all the MSS. but the Vatican, which reads ὅς. 
It is here used, not simply for ὅς, as in vi. 3. 1, see note, but has 
something of a causal force, ‘he being a man of the same senti- 
ments with Theramenes.’ Cp. note on iii. 16. 3, and Hermann, 
(Soph. Pracf. ad O. T. p. xiii) who quotes Herod. iii. 120, of μὲν 


NOTES, BOOK Υν17]. 523 


δὴ piv φασι τοῦτο ἀκούσαντα, καὶ ἀλγήσαντα τῷ dveidel, ἐπιθυμῆσαι ove οὕτω 
τὸν εἵἴπαντα ταῦτα τίσασθαι, ὡς Πολυκράτεα πάντως ἀπολέσαι, & Serva 
κακῶς ἤκουσε: Eur. Alcest. 239,— 
καὶ τάσδε τύχας 
λεύσσων βασιλέως, ὅστις ἀρίστης 
ἀπλακὼν ἀλόχον τῆσδ᾽ ἀβίωτον 


8 v4 ’ 
τὸν ἔπειτα χρύνον βιοτεύσει. 


καὶ ὁ μὲν Θηραμένης ἐλθὼν ἐς τὸν Πειραιᾶ (ἦν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς στρατηγὸς) 
ὅσον καὶ ἀπὸ βοῆς ἕνεκα ὠργίζετο τοῖς δπλίταις. 
ὅσον .. . ἕνεκα, ‘as far as noise could go,’ i.e. he scolded them 
without taking any further measures. For the pleonastic use of ἕνεκα 
cp. Plato, Laws iii. 701 Ὁ, τίνος δὴ χάριν ἕνεκα; and Soph. Phil. 554,— 
ἃ τοῖσιν ᾿Αργείοισιν ἀμφὶ σοῦ vera 


βονλεύματ᾽ ἐστί. 


καὶ τὸν Θηραμένην ἡρώτων͵ εἰ δοκεῖ αὐτῷ ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ τὸ τεῖχος oixodo- 
μεῖσθαι, καὶ εἰ ἄμεινον εἶναι καθαιρεθέν. ὁ δέ, εἴπερ καὶ ἐκείνοις δοκεῖ 
καθαιρεῖν», καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἔφη ξυνδοκεῖν. 

The fame of Theramenes was doubtful among his contem- 
poraries. Like Phrynichus, and the far greater Themistocles, and 
Alcibiades, he might be variously regarded either as the betrayer 
or the saviour of his country. In the striking narrative which is 
given by Xenophon of the life and death struggle between Critias 
and Theramenes, he is described by his opponent as follows, 
Xenoph. Hell. ii. 3. 30 foll. ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι οὐ καινὰ ταῦτα οὗτος ποιεῖ, 
ἀλλὰ φύσει προδότης ἐστίν, ἀναμνήσω ὑμᾶς τὰ τούτῳ πεπραγμένα. οὗτος 
γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τιμώμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμον κατὰ τὸν πατέρα Αγνωνα προπε- 
τέστατος ἐγένετο τὴν δημοκρατίαν μεταστῆσαι εἰς τοὺς τετρακοσίους, καὶ 
ἐπρώτευεν ἐν ἐκείνοις. ἐπεὶ 8 ἤσθετο ἀντίπαλόν τι τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ξυνισ- 
τάμενον, πρῶτος αὖ ἡγεμὼν τῷ δήμῳ én’ ἐκείνους ἐγένετο᾽ ὅθεν δήπου καὶ 
κόθορνος ἐπικαλεῖται' καὶ γὰρ ὁ κόθορνος ἁρμόττειν μὲν τοῖς ποσὶν ἀμφοτέ- 
pos δοκεῖ, ἀποβλέπει δ' ἐπ᾿ ἀμφότερον. ‘Himself the criminal, he was 
the accuser of the generals who commanded at Arginusae. False 
to everybody, he was true only to his own interest. His hands 
were stained with the blood of both parties.’ To which Theramenes 
replies ‘that the generals were self-condemned; that he was right 


92. 6. 


92. 9. 


92. 10. 


93. 10. 


04. 3. 


524 THUCYDIDES. 


in deserting the Thirty when they began to take away the arms and 
lives of the citizens, and the Four Hundred when they were building 
a fort which was designed to admit the enemy: that it is better to 
please everybody than, like Critias, to please nobody.’ 

In Lysias, c. Eratosth. (xii) 63-79, there is a vehement attack 
on Theramenes: he enslaved the people to please his accomplices ; 
he accused and murdered his accomplices Antiphon and Archepto- 
lemus to please the people. Finally, at the critical moment, he 
betrayed the city to the Lacedaemonians and established the 
tyranny of the Thirty. See the whole passage; and cp. Lysias, c 
Agoratum (xiii) 12 [οἱ]. and Xenoph. Hell. ii. 2. 16. 

For the general view of the character of Theramenes ὁ κύθορνος, 
‘the trimmer,’ cp. Aristoph. Frogs 538,— 

τὸ δὲ μεταστρέφεσθαι 

πρὸς τὸ μαλθακώτερον 

δεξιοῦ πρὸς ἀνδρός ἐστι 

καὶ φύσει Θηραμένους. 

968 ,- θηραμένης ; σοφός γ᾽ ἀνὴρ καὶ δεινὸς ἐς τὰ πάντα, 

ὃς ἣν κακοῖς πον περιπέσῃ καὶ πλησίον παραστῇ, 

πέπτωκεν ἔξω τῶν κακῶν, οὐ Χῖος, ἀλλὰ Κεῖος. 
With these passages we may contrast the somewhat extraordinary 
statement of Aristotle (?) cited by Plut. Nic. ii. ὅτε τρεῖς ἐγένοντο 
βέλτιστοι τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ πατρικὴν ἔχοντες εὔνοιαν καὶ φιλίαν πρὸς τὸν 
δῆμον, Νικίας ὁ Νικηράτου, καὶ Θουκυδίδης ὁ Μελησίον, καὶ Θηραμένης 6 
*Ayvovos. To which Plutarch adds the silly remark, probably 
arising from a mistaken recollection or misunderstanding of Aris- 
tophanes, ἧττον δὲ otros ἢ ἐκεῖνοι" καὶ yap eis δυσγένειαν ws ξένος ἐκ 
Κέω λελοιδόρηται, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ μόνιμον x.T.A, 


οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὡς ἠγγέλθη αὐτοῖς, εὐθὺς δρόμῳ ἐς τὸν Πειραιᾶ πανδη- 
pel ἐχώρουν, ὡς τοῦ ἰδίον πολέμου μείζονος [ἢ] ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων οὐχ éxds, 
ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῷ λιμένι ὄντος. 

We have to choose here between the MSS. and the sense. 
1) If 7 (which is only omitted by a single good MS., Cl.) be read, 
Thucydides appears to say that the Athenian people were more 
afraid of the struggle which would ensue at the mouth of the har- 
bour against their own fellow-citizens, who were supposed to have 


NOTES, BOOK VIII, 525 


invited the Peloponnesian ships, than of the enemy themselves. 94. 3. 
But this, though not unmeaning in itself, gives no special reason 
why they should leave the assembly and go to the Piraeus, which 
they would equally have done if they were only expecting to meet 
the enemy. 
It is better therefore 2)* to omit ἢ. The construction will then 
be as follows :----ὡὡς πολέμου ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων μείζονος τοῦ ἰδίου πολέμου 
... ὄντος. Or 3), with one good MS. (Ven.), we may read τοῦ ἀπό 
instead of ἣ ἀπό. 


᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ κατὰ τάχος καὶ ἀξυγκροτήτοις πληρώμασιν ἀναγκασθέντες OS. 2. 
χρήσασθαι κ-τ.λ. 

‘Unpractised crews,’ ‘not used to act together, a metaphor 
taken from metals, literally, ‘not hammered for use,’ or ‘ not welded 
together.” Cp. Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 12, ob φαῦλον ἡγούμενος εἶνιι ἐπὶ 


συγκεκροτημένας ναῦς εἰκῇ περιπλεῦσαι. 


οἱ δὲ ἐς τὸ ἐπιτείχισμα τὸ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ερετρίᾳ, ὃ εἶχον αὐτοί, περιγίγνονται, 98. 6. 
καὶ ὅσαι ἐς Χαλκίδα ἀφικνοῦνται τῶν νεῶν. 

ἐπιτείχισμα, usually, a fort in an enemy’s country. Here, if the 
word is genuine, it must be understood to mean, ‘a fort intended to 
control the Eretrians.’ Bekker, following Vat, reads τείχισμα. 


καὶ ὕστερον ov πολλῷ Ἑὔβοιάν τε ἅπασαν ἀποστήσαντες πλὴν ᾿Ωρεοῦ, 95. 1. 
ταύτην δὲ αὐτοὶ ᾿Αθηναῖοι εἶχον, καὶ τἄλλα τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν καθίσταντο. 

τέ---καί connects the participle ἀποστήσαντες with the finite verb 
καθίσταντο, a change of construction similar to that in c. 81 init. 
and elsewhere; cp. note on i. 9. 3. ὃ 5. καθίσταντο is used as if 
ἀπέστησαν had preceded, the change to the finite verb being assisted 
by the attraction of εἶχον. 


ὅπου yap στρατοπέδου τε τοῦ ἐν Σάμῳ ἀφεστηκότος, ἄλλων Te νεῶν οὐκ 98. 2. 
οὐσῶν, οὐδὲ τῶν ἐσβησομένων, . .. τοσαύτη ἡ ξυμφορὰ ἐπεγεγένητο κιτιλ. 

Not literally ‘no others,’ for they did succeed in getting together 
twenty (infra c. 97 init.), but they had no more ships in the naval 
sense of the term, properly manned and equipped. 

ἄλλων, not ‘besides those at Samos,’ but ‘besides those which had 
gone to Euboea.’ 


96. 3. 


96. 5. 


97. 


I. 


526 LHUCYDIDES. 


μάλιστα δ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ δι᾽ éyyurdrov ἐθορύβει, εἰ οἱ πολέμιοι τολμήσουσε 
νενικηκότες εὐθὺς σφῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ ἔρημον ὄντα νεῶν πλεῖν. 

τολμήσουσι. εἰ with the fut. indicative expresses the nearness of 
the danger. σφῶν 1)* may be taken with ci πολέμιοι, ‘if their 
victorious enemies’ (not merely ‘ the victorious enemy ’) ‘mean to 
sail direct for the Piraeus." The pronoun implies the close re- 
lation of hostility in which ‘their’ enemies stood to them. Or 2)* 
σφῶν may be taken with Πειραιᾶ (Arn.), ‘of what belonged to them;’ 
cp. expressions like τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς és ᾿Οινόην, ii. 18 init. and note om 
v. 83. 4. 


καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ‘EXAnonovrds τε ἂν ἦν αὐτοῖς καὶ ᾿Ιωνία καὶ αἱ νῆσοι καὶ τὰ 
μέχρι Εὐβοίας, καὶ ὡς εἰπεῖν ἡ ᾿Αθηναίων ἀρχὴ πᾶσα. 

The island of Euboea, taken inclusively, is the natural boundary 
of the Aegean and of the Athenian empire to the west. The read- 
ing Βοιωτίας (Bekker) would have much the same meaning, but it 
is only supported by Vat. 


διάφοροι yap πλεῖστον ὄντες τὸν τρόπον, ot μὲν ὀξεῖς, at δὲ βραδεῖς, 
καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐπιχειρηταὶ οἱ δὲ ἄτολμοι, ἄλλως τε καὶ ναυτικῇ ἀρχῇ, πλεῖστα 
ὠφέλουν. 

διάφοροι, οἱ μέν, οἱ δέ, may be explained as nominatives absolute, 
from which the nominative to ὠφέλουν, of Λακεδαιμόνιοι, is supplied : 
or διάφοροι may be confined to the Lacedaemonians. The contrast 
of character is present to Thucydides throughout his work, being 
described by him in the most vivid manner, before the commence- 
ment of the war, i. 70, again and again repeated in many satirical 
touches (e.g. ii. 94, iii. 31 fin., 33 init, iv. 13 fin.), recurring in a 
striking manner in the middle of the work (iv. 55), and once more 
near its close. 

ναυτικῇ ἀρχῇ, the reading of every MS. but the Vatican, which 
inserts ἐν before ναυτικῇ, is best taken as a dative of relation, 
‘especially since their enemies were a naval power,’ lit. ‘in re- 
lation to them being a naval power.’ 


καὶ ἐκκλησίαν ξυνέλεγον, μίαν μὲν εὐθὺς τότε πρῶτον ἐς τὴν Πύκνα 
καλουμένην, οὗπερ καὶ ἄλλοτε εἰώθεσαν x.T.A. 
The return of the Athenians to their beloved Pnyx (Aristoph. 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 527 


Knights 750), after the irregular meetings at Colonus, the Piraeus, 97, 1. 
etc., like the return of the French Assembly from Versailles to 
Paris, is noted as an event in the history of the constitution. 


εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶν ὁπόσοι καὶ ὅπλα παρέχονται" καὶ μισθὸν μηδίνα φέρειν θ7. 1. 
μηδεμίᾳ ἀρχῇ, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐπάρατον ἐποιήσαντο. ἐγίγνοντο δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι ὕστερ- 2. 
ον πυκναὶ ἐκκλησίαι, ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ νομοθέτας καὶ τἄλλα ἐψηφίσαντο ἐς τὴν 
πολιτείαν, καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα δὴ τὸν πρῶτον χρόνον ἐπί γε. ἐμοῦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι 
φαίνονται εὖ πολιτεύσαντες. μετρία γὰρ ἥ τε ἐς τοὺς ὀλίγους καὶ τοὺς 
᾿ πολλοὺς ξύγκρασις ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐκ πονηρῶν τῶν πραγμάτων γενυμένων 
τοῦτο πρῶτον ἀνήνεγκε τὴν πόλιν. 

Arnold’s remark, ‘We must suppose that all who could furnish 
heavy arms were eligible into the number of the 5000 ; whether 
the members were fixed on by lot, by election, or by rotation,’ 
is at variance with the text, which expressly says that ‘the 5000 
were to comprise all those who provided themselves with arms,’ 
not that the members of the assembly were to be elected out of 
the whole number of heavy-armed. 

As Grote observes, the number 5000 is not intended to be taken 
literally. For this there is some confirmation in the speech of 
Lysias (Ὁ), pro Polystrato, (xx) 13, 14. The writer claims for 
Polystratus. the credit of having made the number of citizens not 
5000 but 9000 when employed by the 400, of whom he was for a 
short time one, to make out a list. But the oration: is of little 
authority. What was the true number is uncertain: but we may 
argue from probabilities. At the commencement of the war the 
Athenian heavy-armed amounted to 29,000, of whom 13,000 (oi 
ἐκ xaraddyov) served in the field. After heavy losses from the 
plague (iii. 87), from defeats in battle, especially at Spartolus (ii. 
79), in Aetolia (iii. 98), at Delium (iv. 94. 96), and at Amphipolis 
(v. 11 fin.), they had been replenished during the interval of peace 
(vi. 26). At the commencement of the Sicilian expedition they can- 
not have fallen far short of their original numbers. In that expedition 
(vi. 43, vii. 20) 2700 hoplites, ἐκ καταλόγου, perished (besides 700 
ἐπιβάται). Thus the 13,000 would be reduced to 10,000 or a litt’e 
more. But it is evident that in a time of poverty and distress all 
these could not have provided themselves with arms. 


67. 


I. 


528 THUCYDIDES. 


μηδεμίᾳ ἀρχῇ, ‘in’ or ‘for any office.’ As in Arist. Polit. πὶ 
1. 6. 7, the dicast and ecclesiast are clearly regarded as holding an 
‘ office.’ 

νομοθέτας, the ordinary body of that name, not special commis- 
sioners, as is shown by the combination of the word with καὶ ne 
ἐψηφίσαντο ἐς τὴν πολιτείαν. 

τὸν πρῶτον χρόνον, ‘at first, not, ‘for the first time.’ This ex- 
planation agrees better with οὐχ ἥκιστα, and with the facts of the 
case. For Thucydides cannot have meant to say that the Athenians 
were better governed at this time than in the days of Pericles. 

μετρία yap κα. The words μετρία yap . . . Evyxpacis ἐγένετο show 
that εὖ πολιτεύσαντες refers to a definite form of government, not 
merely to political moderation. This constitution probably ap- 
proached nearer to Aristotle’s πολιτεία than any other recorded in 
ancient history. The number admitted to the governing body was 
considerable, and yet the government was placed in the hands of 
those who were well to do and could provide themselves with arms, 
and who were willing to attend the law-courts and assembly with- 
out receiving pay. The actual administration was probably thus 
confined to a few of the higher class. It is by such methods that 
Aristotle proposes to moderate the licence of democracy. 

We are not informed how long this happier state of things lasted, 
and no mention occurs in Xenophon, or any other writer, of a 
change in the Athenian constitution before the termination of the 
war. Five years later occurred the trial of the generals, in which 
all the citizens took part (Xen. Hell. i. 7. 9 διαψηφίσασθαι ᾿Αθηναίους 
πάντας κατὰ φυλάς) Certainly, in the last year of the war, the 
Athenian people were as much distracted by faction and treason 
as at any previous time. 

The leading feature of the change was not the limitation of the 
citizens to the number of ‘5000,’ for that followed naturally, but 
the withdrawal of the pay from dicasts and ecclesiasts, and the 
regulation that none should have the suffrage but those who could 
provide themselves with arms. The ναντικὸς ὄχλος would thus be 
excluded. Probably the number of citizens was never enlarged 
by any direct enactment. At what time the restriction to those 
who found arms was repealed, and the pay of the dicasts and 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 529 


ecclesiasts restored, is nowhere recorded. But in Aristoph., Frogs 97, 2. 
(acted in 405), the dicast is again receiving his pay, 1466,— 

εὖ, πλήν γ᾽ ὁ δικαστὴς αὐτὰ καταπίνει μόνος. 
See on the whole subject Vischer, Kleine Schriften, i. p. 20δ--238 ; 
502-508 : Herbst, Die Schlacht bei den Arginusen, Appendix ii. 

The form of government called by Aristotle a πολιτεία differed 
from oligarchy, on the one hand, by admitting virtue as a claim 
to office in the selection of rulers (though practically men confuse 
wealth and virtue), and from democracy, on the other, by requiring 
a certain degree of wealth in the citizens: ἔστι yap ἡ πολιτεία ὡς 
ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν μίξις ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας, εἰώθασι δὲ καλεῖν τὰς μὲν 
ἀποκλινούσας ὡς πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν πολιτείας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν 
μᾶλλον ἀριστοκρατίας, διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἀκολουθεῖν παιδείαν καὶ εὐγένειαν τοῖς 
εὐπορωτέροις, Polit. iv. 8. 3. Aristotle also recommends (iv. 13. 7) 
that the government should be composed of the armed citizens, 
and that those who have part in it should outnumber those who 
have not. 

Aristophanes at a later period (Frogs, acted 405) seeks to 
enforce upon the Athenians the same moderation which actuated 
them after the fall of the 400: 687 foll.,— 

πρῶτον οὖν ἡμῖν δοκεῖ 
ἐξισῶσαι τοὺς πολίτας κἀφελεῖν τὰ δείματα. 
Ket τις ἥμαρτε σφαλείς τι Φρυνίχου παλαίσμασιν, 
ἐγγενέσθαι φημὶ χρῆναι τοῖς ὀλισθοῦσιν τότε 
αἰτίαν ἐκθεῖσι λῦσαι τὰς πρότερον ἁμαρτίας. 
εἶτ᾽ ἄτιμόν φημι χρῆναι μηδέν᾽ εἶν᾽ ἐν τῇ πόλει... 
... εἰ δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ὀγκωσόμεσθα κἀποσεμνυνούμεθα 
τὴν πόλιν, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἔχοντες κυμάτων ἐν ἀγκάλαις 
ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ ποτ᾽ αὖθις εὖ φρονεῖν οὐ δόξομεν. 

Such moderation Theramenes affirms to have been his guiding 
principle (Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 48). He is equally opposed to those 
who think that there can be no true democracy until the men who 
would sell their country for a drachma get their drachma, and no 
true oligarchy, until the oligarchs become tyrants. He adds 
in obscure words, ‘I have always thought, and still maintain, that 
the city is best administered by those who can serve her with horse 
and shield.’ 


VOL. II. M mM 


97. 2. 


530 THUCYDIDES. 


These passages alike tend to show that the seemingly chance 
words of Thucydides indicate a widely recognised principle, which 
the Athenian people had learned by bitter experience, and which 
in the next generation was embodied in a new political idea. 


ἐπολιόρκουν δ᾽ αὐτὸ διὰ ξυμφορὰν σφίσιν ἐκ τῆς Οἶνόης γενομένην ἀνδρῶν 
ἐκ Δεκελείας ἀναχωρούντων διαφθορᾶς οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἐθελοντηδόν. 

Probably on the occasion mentioned in c. 71, when, after the 
attempt on the Athenian walls, Agis sent back the greater part of 
his army. ξυμφορὰ διαφθορᾶς, said like τὴν ξυμφορὰν τῆς φυγῆς, 
c. 81 med., ἡ ξυντυχία τῆς ἡμετέρας χρείας, 1. 33 init. 


ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους τοῦ θέρους τούτου καὶ ot ἐν τῇ Μιλήτῳ Πελο- 
ποννήσιοι, ὡς τροφήν τε οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου, .. οὕτω δὴ ὁ Μίνδαρος... . ἄρας 
ἀπὸ τῆς Μιλήτου ναυσὶ τρισὶ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔπλει ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον. 

οἱ ἐν τῇ Μιλήτῳ Πελοποννήσιοι is resumed in οὕτω δὴ ὁ Μίνδαρος, about 
ten lines below. Cp. note on iv. 73. 4, where οἱ Μεγαρῆς is similarly 
resumed in the words οὕτω δὴ... of τῶν φευγόντων φίλοι Μεγαρῆς. 

A comparison of the passages in which Thucydides, towards the 
end of Book VIII, describes the numbers of the Athenian and 
Peloponnesian fleets, shows that he has not given a full account 
of their movements. 

a) The number of the Peloponnesian fleet when it sailed for 
the Hellespont should be eighty-six, not seventy-three. Cp. c. 79 
init., 80 fin., 99 fin. It is true that, according to Diodorus, xiii. 38, 
Mindarus, before his departure, sent to Rhodes, under Dorieus, 
a squadron of thirteen ships, the precise number required in order 
to reconcile the statements of Thucydides. And Xenophon, 
Hell. i. 1. 2, tells us that Dorieus rejoined the Peloponnesian fleet 
at the Hellespont. But 1) Xenophon speaks of fourteen, not 
of thirteen, ships ; 2) two Peloponnesian ships which had been sent 
with Philip to Aspendus (c. 87 fin.) are still unaccounted for ; 
3) Diodorus also says that eighty-three, not seventy-three, ships 
sailed with Mindarus to the Hellespont. 

6) In c. 103 init. the number of the Peloponnesian fleet is 
eighty-six, whereas it should have been eighty-seven, see 99 fin., 
102 med., 103. Cp. note on viii. 17. 3. 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 531 


c) In c. 104 init., which mentions the number of the two fleets 99. 
when about to engage, the MSS. vary. Five of the best give seventy- 
six as the strength of the Athenian fleet ; the rest (including two in 
which seventy-six is a correction) eighty-six. From the preceding 
narrative, we infer eighty-one (c. 100 init., and fin. 102, where 
four ships are lost). We may conjecture with Arnold that the five 
Methymnaean ships (c. 100 fin.) had remained behind at Lesbos, 
or with Classen, that five of the eighteen ships which were chased 
by Mindarus had not yet returned. But on this point Thucydides 
is silent. 

The number of the Peloponnesian ships, according to two good 
MSS. (Cl. Ven.), is eighty-eight, according to the rest, sixty-eight. 
But this latter number cannot be correct, for the account of the 
battle shows that the Peloponnesian forces outnumbered their 
enemies. Poppo reads ὀκτὼ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα, Arnold ἐξ καὶ dydon- 
κοντα, Which agrees with c. 103 init., and may have been altered 
by an accidental inversion to ὀκτὼ καὶ ἑξήκοντα. 

It may be argued, a) that there are corruptions in the numbers 
of the text. But though letters which denote numbers are more 
liable to corruption than other letters, they cannot have been 
corrupted by accident in so many places; and the assumption of 
ἃ constant corruption of them is not justified by the amount of 
numerical errors in other passages in Thucydides (see note on 
i. 57.6). The truth is 4) that Thucydides himself is somewhat 
careless of such details, especially in the concluding, and perhaps 
half-finished, portion of his work. 

Whatever be the explanation of the seeming error, it is safer 
simply to accept the words of Thucydides than to attempt to re- 
concile them by groundless assumptions, or by the help of later 
historians. 


νομίσας αὐτὸν καθέξειν αὐτοῦ. 100. I. 
καθέξειν, 1) neuter, cp. viii. 28 init. ἐν 7 ᾿Αμόργης πολέμιος ὧν 
κατεῖχε: iV. 32 med. ἄλλοι douse περὶ Πύλον κατεῖχον. Or 2)* active, 


‘that he would keep Mindarus at Chios.’ 


διὰ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Μυτιλήνης ᾿Αθηναίων φρουροὺς προελθόντας, 100. 3. 
Mm 2 


100. 3. 


101. 1. 


532 THUCYDIDES. 


Either 1)* ‘ anticipating ’ the refugees who were about to attack 
Methymna. Or 2) advancing from Mitylene to meet them. (But 
Thucydides would hardly speak of ‘advancing’ from a place thirty 
miles off.) Or 3) advancing from Methymna, whither they had 
come from Mitylene. 


ὁ δὲ Μίνδαρος ἐν τούτῳ καὶ al ἐκ τῆς Χίου τῶν Πελοποννησίων νῆες, 
ἐπισιτισάμεναι δυσὶν ἡμέραις, καὶ λαβόντες παρὰ τῶν Χίων τρεῖς τεσσαρα- 
κοστὰς ἕκαστος Χίας, τῇ τρίτῃ διὰ ταχέων ἀπαίρουσιν ἐκ τῆς Χίου οὗ 
πελάγιαι, iva μὴ περιτύχωσι ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ερέσῳ ναυσίν, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ 
τὴν Λέσβον ἔχοντες ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τὴν ἤπειρον. 

τεσσαρακοστάς, see note on English text. 

All the MSS., including the Vatican (which, according to Béhme, 
is erroneously cited by Poppo), read πελάγιαι, omitting od. But 
nearly all the editors, on the suggestion of Haacke, have inserted 
ov before πελάγιαι, which may easily have been lost in the last letters 
of the preceding word Xiov. The correction is necessary. For 
a) the Peloponnesians, who did not want to fall in with the Athe- 
nians blockading Eresus, were more likely to accomplish their 
object by keeping between Chios and the mainland, than by sailing 
first south and west into the open sea, and then along the west 
and north coast of Chios. (They are expressly said, for some 
reason or other which is not mentioned, to have escaped the 
observation of the Athenian scouts, c. 103 init. Inc. 100 init. the 
words ἐν τῇ ἀντιπέρας ἠπείρῳ Clearly refer to the mainland opposite 
Lesbos which has just been mentioned, not opposite Chios.) 

δὴ Unless οὐ is inserted no proper force can be given to the 
adversative ἀλλά. The meaning would be, ‘they sailed through 
the open sea, that they might not be seen by the Athenians; and, 
keeping Lesbos on the left hand, made for the continent.’ 

But 2) Thucydides, who gives a precise account of the latter part 
of the voyage, would not have described so complicated a move- 
ment by the words ἀπαίρουσιν ἐκ τῆς Χίον. .. ἤπειρον. 

These great difficulties more than justify the insertion of οὐ, 
although there is still a slight irregularity, the finite verb ἔπλεον 
corresponding to the adjective πελάγιαι. 

ἐπὶ τὴν ἤπειρον, i.e. after rounding the promontory of Mimas they 


NOTES, BOOK VII. 533 


struck inwards across the mouth of the Hermaean bay for Phocaea, 101. 1. 
in order to keep as far as possible from the Athenians who were 
blockading Eresus. It is impossible to take ἐπί in the sense of παρά 
(along). The further movement of the Peloponnesian fleet along 

the coast is clearly expressed in the words which follow, παραπλεύ- 

σαντες τὴν Kupaiay. 


παραπλεύσαντες τὴν Κυμαίαν δειπνοποιοῦνται ἐν ᾿Αργεννούσαις τῆς 10], 2. 
ἡπείρον, ἐν τῷ ἀντιπέρας τῆς Μυτιλήνης. 

περαιοῦνται is an example of a reading which is unmeaning found 
in nearly every MS. We must restore δειπνοποιοῦνται from a single 
inferior MS. (E), which reads δειπνοποιοῦντες, from the margin of a 
good MS. (Cass.), and from the Latin translation of Valla. 


βουλόμενοι ἐκπλεῦσαι ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν τὰς τῶν πολεμίων ναῦς. 102. 2. 
‘Wanting to sail into the open sea, and escape the enemies’ 
fleet ;’ ἐκπλεῦσαι τὰς vais is said like μηδένα ὄχλον ὑποχωρεῖν, ti. 88 fin., 
ὑπεξελθόντες τούτους, lii. 34 med. 


καὶ τὰς μὲν ἐν ᾿Αβύδῳ ἑκκαίδεκα vais ἔλαθον, προειρημένης φυλακῆς τῷ 102. 2. 
φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ ὅπως αὐτῶν ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν ἣν ἐκπλέωσιν, τὰς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ 
Μινδάρου ἅμα τῇ ἕῳ κατιδόντες τὴν δίωξιν εὐθὺς ποιούμενοι, οὐ φθάνουσι 
πᾶσαι, ἀλλ᾽ αἱ μὲν πλείους ἐπὶ τῆς Ἴμβρον καὶ Λήμνου διέφυγον, τέσσαρες 
δὲ τῶν νεῶν αἱ ὕσταται πλέουσαι καταλαμβάνονται παρὰ τὸν ᾿Ελαιοῦντα. 

τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ = τοῖς φίλοις ἐπιπλέουσιν. ‘Orders having been 
given to them’ (i.e. to the sixteen Peloponnesian ships) ‘ by their 
friends who were sailing up, to keep a sharp look out for the Athe- 
nians if they should try to sail out of the Hellespont.’ προειρη- 
μένης φυλακῆς really explains not why the Athenians escaped the 
notice of the sixteen ships, but why it is necessary for the writer 
to tell us that they did so. 

ποιουμένων, OF ποιουμένον referring to Mindarus, must be substituted 
for the reading of the MSS. ποιούμενοι, for it is clear that the 
Peloponnesians, and not the Athenians, are referred to. The 
anacoluthon, which disconnects ποιούμενοι both with κατιδάντες and 
with ai πλείους, would be too violent even for Thucydides. 

παρὰ τὸν ᾿Ελαιοῦντα, not with πλέουσαι, which is to be taken closely 


102, 2. 


105. 2. 


105. 3. 


107. 2. 


108. 5. 


534 THUCYDIDES. 


with ai torara, but to be explained by a confusion of rest and 
motion. Cp. note on vi. 57. 3. 


πρὶν of Πελοποννήσιοι, διὰ τὸ κρατήσαντες ἀδεῶς ἄλλοι ἄλλην ναῦν 
διώκοντες, ἤρξαντο μέρει τινε σφῶν ἀτακτότεροι γενέσθαι. 

For διὰ τό followed by a participle cp. note oni. 2.5. The 
words are to be taken with διώκοντες, to which κρατήσαντες is sub- 
ordinate. For σφῶνΞΞ ἑαυτῶν, see note on vi. 76. 3. 


γνόντες δὲ of περὶ τὸν Θρασύβουλον, τὰς ἐπὶ σφίσι vais ἐπεχούσας, 
παυσάμενοι τῆς ἐπεξαγωγῆς ἤδη τοῦ κέρως καὶ ἐπαναστρέψαντες, εὐθὺς ἡμύν- 
avrd τε καὶ τρέπουσι, καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὸ νικῆσαν τῶν Πελοποννησίων μέρος 
ὑπολαβόντες πεπλανημένας ἕκοπτόν τε καὶ ἐς φόβον τὰς πλείστας ἀμαχεὶ 
καθίστασαν. 

ἐπεχούσας ἐπὶ σφίσι, 1)" ‘having their place opposite to them.’ For 
the ordinary use with an accusative, but in the same sense, cp. i 48 
med. τὸ δὲ ἄλλο αὐτοὶ ἐπεῖχον. Or 2) ‘which were pressing upon 
them,’ cp. supra, ὑπὸ πλήθους τῶν ἐπικειμένων νεῶν. The word is used 
in this sense by Herod. ix. 59, ἐπεῖχέ re (scil. ὁ ᾿Αρτάβαζος) ἐπὶ Aaxe- 
δαιμονίους τε καὶ Τεγεήτας μούνους. 

ὑπολαβόντες, See note on English text. 


ἔπλευσαν δὲ ἐν τούτῳ καὶ οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αβύδου ἐπὶ τὸν 
᾿Ελαιοῦντα καὶ τῶν σφετέρων νεῶν τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ὅσαι ἧσαν ὑγιεῖς ἐκο- 
μίσαντο (τὰς δὲ ἄλλας ᾿Ελαιούσιοι κατέκαυσαν) x.7.d. 

The narrative of Thucydides is somewhat incomplete. We 
must suppose that the Athenians after the battle had sailed to 
Elaeus, which was their ally (c. 103 init.), and had there deposited 
the captured vessels. ‘Thence they sailed to Sestos (c. 107 init.) 
and afterwards to Cyzicus: in their absence the Peloponnesians 
sailed to Elaeus and recovered those of their ships which the 
Elaeusians had not bumed. 


φοβούμενοι οὖν αὐτὸν διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον μήποτε καὶ περὶ σφᾶς τι παρα- 
νομήσῃ, καὶ ἄλλα ἐπιβάλλοντος αὐτοῦ ἃ φέρειν οὐκ ἠδύναντο, ἐκβάλλουσι 
τοὺς φρουροὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως. 

Thucydides leaves us to infer from the words which follow, 


NOTES, BOOK VIII. 535 


c. 109 init., that the expulsion was effected by the help of the 108. 5. 
Peloponnesians whom the Antandrians had introduced into their 
city (c. 108 init.). 


καὶ ἀφικόμενος πρῶτον ἐς "Ἔφεσον θυσίαν ἐποιήσατο τῇ ᾿Αρτέμιδι. 109. 1. 

Whether the sacrifice offered by Tissaphernes to Artemis was 
a matter of policy or of customary religious observance can only 
be conjectured. In either case it shows the influence which Hel- 
lenic ideas and practices gained over Persians who were brought 
into contact with them. A year or two later, as we learn from 
Xenophon, Tissaphernes took occasion to manifest his policy or 
his piety in a similar manner; Hell. i. 2. 6, Θράσυλος δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα 
ἀπήγαγεν ἐπὶ θάλατταν τὴν στρατιάν, ὡς εἰς "Ἔφεσον πλευσούμενος. Τισ- 
σαφέρνης δὲ αἰσθόμενος τοῦτο τὸ ἐπιχείρημα, στρατιάν τε συνέλεγε πολλὴν 
καὶ ἱππεῖς ἀπέστελλε παραγγέλλων πᾶσιν εἰς Ἔφεσον βοηθεῖν τῇ ᾿Αρτέμιδι. 


Two MSS. of Thucydides are preserved in the Bodleian 
Library, marked respectively 47 and 48 of the Canonici 
collection (Codices Graeci), the first of the fifteenth, the 
second of the fourteenth century. The latter, which is the 
better as well as the older, is much corrected, and, as far 
as I can judge from a collation of the first book, has many 
mistakes, misspellings, transpositions of words, and other 
inferior readings, but no signs of peculiar or original ones. 
It contains also Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ treatise Περὶ 
τῶν Θουκυδίδου ἰδιωμάτων, and the latter part of the Life of 
Thucydides ascribed to Marcellinus. 


INDEX TO THE 


A. 


Abstract for concrete, p. 498, 533. 

Accusative, absolute, or remote ac- 
cusative, 63, 65, 101, 349, 407; 
due to anacoluthon, 9o, 187, 349; 
cognate, 124, 288-289, 305, 351, 
474; after neuter verbs, 210, 377, 
533; with infinitive referring to 
the subject of the main verb, 343; 
accusativus pendens, 38, 109, 136, 
178, 257; of reference, or remote 
accusative, 134, 209, 347-348, 391, 
416, 452, 470, 514-515; 516; after 
δεῖσθαι, 308; with ws, 500. 

Achaea, its relations to the Athe- 
nian empire, 71. 

Adjective, peculiar position of, 141, 
164, 450. 

/Eginetan standard, 202. 
lian, 369. 

fEschines, cited, 49, 296. 

fEschylus, on the number of the 
Athenian ships at Salamis, 56; 
cited, Ag., 15, 289; Choeph., 11; 
Eum, 194; Pers., 454. 

Agathias, 147-148, 187. 

Alcaeus, 454. 

Alcibiades, 129, 310, 317-318, 349, 
350, 353, 373, 396, 467, 513. 
ciphron, 431. 

Allies of Athens, 24, 57-58, 84, 185- 
186, 295) 301, 390, 421-422, 438, 


471, 489-490, 498. See Tribute. . 


Alternative clauses, obscurely ex- 
pressed, 19; apparent but not 
real alternatives, 75, 504. 

Ammianus Marcellinus, 49. 

Anacoluthon, 12, 22, 29, 38, 55, 63, 
79, 90, 94, 100, 108, 116, 187, 195, 
227, 240, 241, 244, 251, 256, 260, 
262, 271, 349, 359, 364, 420, 475, 
479, 508, 511, 533. 

Andocides, 296, 358, 371, 372 ff, 
395; Pseudo-Andocides, 296. 

Androtion, 161. 


NOTES. I. 


Antiochus of Syracuse, 341, 343. 
Antiphon, 58, 227, 361, 464, 50ο1-- 


502. 

Antithesis, 37, 75, 81, 93, 123, 128, 
178, 198, 209, 270, 288, 338. 

Aorist, the historical tense, 276; 
used in future perfect sense, 296; 
in pluperfect sense, 133, 398; 
aorist and present, 228, 300, 305, 
362, 488; aorist and imperfect, 
400-401; aorist and plupertect, 
435; infinitive, ‘used for’ future, 
230; participle, not indicating 
time prior to that of the main 
verb, 67, 115, 191, 249, 276, 348, 


355- 

Aposiopesis, 174, 233, 345. 

Appian, 227, 464. 

Apposition, 38, 83, 91, 107, 164. 

Archelaus, king of Thrace, 141. 

Archons, entered office on first of 
Hecatombaeon, 85. 

Argives, their character, 305, 315; 
ancient supremacy of Argos, 320. 

Argos, the Amphilochian, 6; topo- 
graphy of, 221. 

Aristides (Rhetor), 206 

Aristophanes, cited, Acharn., 77, 
96, 99, 102, 130,259, 505; Knights, 
7, 98, 133, 178, 226, 240, 245, 
246, 247, 293, 428, 505, 526-527 ; 
Clouds, 7, 245, 293, 395, 505; 
Wasps, 283, 372, 502, 505; Peace, 
82, 94, 122, 133, Bn 246, 259, 
293, 305, 415, 505; Birds, 65, 1o1, 
188, 278, 284, 340, 344, 346, 357, 
423, 506; Lysistr., 67, 316, 326, 
420; Thesmoph 482, 506; Frogs, 
349, 421, 500, 524, 529; Frag- 
ments, 27, 49, 240; reckons Pelo- 
ponnesian war from B.C. 432, 98. 

Aristotle, cited, 100, 524; Nic. Eth., 
108, 173. 272, 502; Polit., 8, 20, 
_ Go, 156, 205, 263, 500, 528, 520; 
Rhet. +) 3) 214, 372; ἀνέμων θέσεις, 

159. 


538 


Army, Athenian, 96, 99, 218, 228, 
283, 485, 527. 

Arnold, 86, 113, 117, 127, 136, 163, 
166, 189, 190, 193, 202, 207, 229, 
234, 264, 307, 332, 346, 369, 377, 
395, 399 ff, 402, 405, 417, 418, 


436, 437, 482, 484, 486, 501, 511, 
526, 527, 531; on the genuineness 


of Thuc. iii. 84, 211; on Sphac- 
teria, 224 ff. 

Arrangement of the narrative of 
Thucydides, 68, 70, 71, 87, 167, 
265, 359, 376-377, 398, 492. 

icle, used as demonstrative pro- 
noun, 67, 167, 197, 243; with in- 
finitive, 111, 516, 517; with par- 
ticiple, apparently superfluous, 
205, 224, 242-243; 287, 289 ; ’ 
presenting individuals under a 
general aspect, 243; omitted, 17, 
44-45, 73, 109, 196; omitted with 
the second on two substantives, 
; other uses, 66, 


126, 192, cp. 8: 
164, 170, 383, 423, 433, 444, 475- 


479. 

Asyndeton, 47, 122, 177, 195, 200, 
231, 249-250, 395. 

Athenaeus, 2 

Athenians, the growth of their 
empire, 105; union of, with the 
Lacedaemonians against Hellas, 
237,301; their marine supremacy, 
316; persistence in sieges, 338; 
character of their empire, 390; 
their camp at Syracuse, 436; 
their power compared with the 
Syracusan, 420, 437; contrasted 
with the Lacedaemonians, 526; 
their constitution after the fall 
of the 400, 527 ff. 

Athletes, 161, 280. 

Attraction, 2, 127, 257. 


B. 
Bast, Commentatio Palzographica, 
6 


9. 

Bauer, 434, 499. 

Bekker, Anecdota, 58. 

Bekker, 162, 211, 287, 331, 342, 
386, 394, 419, 482, 493, 509, 514, 
521, 525, 526. 

Bergk, 521. 

Boccaccio, 151 ff. 

Boeckh, 49, 85, 88, 89, 95, 250, 282- 


283, 369, 421, 503. 


INDEX ἢ 


Bohme, 81, 93, 487, 532. 

Bottia, Bottizea, 132, 142. 

Brasidas, 268, 269. 

Burke, quoted, 54, 62, 108, 183, 185. 


C. 


Calendar, Greek, ὃς ff, 101; Julian 
and Gre gorian, 89; tricks played 
with the evalendar by the Argives, 


315. 

Callisthenes, 494. 

Campbell, 72, 83. 

Campe, 319. 

Cantacuzenus, 147. 

Carapanos, 215. 

Carnea, 324. 

Changes in the Greek coast, 187, 
221, 226. 

ashes 69, 87 ff., 129, 299- 
300 

C1. A. (Compas Inscriptionum 
Atticarum), 8 282-283, 297, 298, 
370, 521 

Cicero, cited, 163, 407, 458. 

C. I. G. (Corpus Inscriptionum 
Graecarum), 50, 70, 282, 328. 

City, name of a, used for its terri- 
tory, 238. 

Classen, 10, 19, 29, 31, 38, 46, 47, 
64, 81, 86, 121, 127, 128, 135, 138, 
166, 173, 211, 224, 228, 236, 238, 
242, 277, 288, 290, 298, 306, 308, 
312, 313, 318, 366, 377, 382, 383, 
384, 391, 415, 417, 434, 438, 442, 
452, 453, 458, 471, 476, 482, 486, 
488, 511, 515, 531. . 

Cleandridas, father of Gylippus, 404. 

Cleon, 292-293. 

Cobet, 49, 286. 

Comparative, peculiar uses of, 6o, 
61, 74, 93, 107-108, 114, 210, 241, 
253, 250, 276, 388, 390-301, 444-- 
445; 4 

Conciseness, giving rise to irregu- 
larity, 40, 42, 109. 

Confusion, of general and parti- 
cular, 17, 52, 109, 192, Cp. 327; of 
rest and motion, 241, 355, 533- 
534; confused expression, more 
common in Thucydides than 
feebleness of construction, 125. 

Conjectural emendations, remarks 
on, 5, 12, 45, 46, 47, 49, 66, 68 ff., 
87, 99, 100, 129, 137, 140, 162, 
169, 174, 175, 178, 180, 192, 215, 


INDEX ἡ 


231, 236, 241, 250, 252, 258, 263, 
282, 286, 287, 298, 307, 308, 317, 
318, 319, 342, 351, 353, 366, 368, 
381, 393, 394, 406, 414, 423, 431, 
432, 433, 434, 478, 480, 486, 489, 
490, 511, 514, 515, 532, 533; 
emendations confirmed by a new 
MS., 439, 493. 

Construction, harsh constructions 
more common in Thucydides 
than unusual meanings of words 
or phrases, 190; changed as the 
sentence proceeds, 187, 235, 251, 
318, 324, 344, 353, 365, 367, 384, 
385; weak constructions sup- 
ported, 194, 210, 244, 2533 433 5 
words standing in a double con- 
struction, 2, 38, 249, 253, 287, 
322, 336, 385, 412, 428, 430, 431, 
433, 519; the nearer and more 
natural to be preferred, 337. 

Corcyra, topography of, 204. 

Corcyraeans, apply to the oracle of 
Dodona, 215. 

Corinth, Isthmus of, its topography, 
246-247. 

Cratippus, 462. 

Critias, 520. 

Curtius (Quintus), 468. 

Curtius (E.), 494. 


D. 

Darwin, 215. 

Dascon, 380. 

Dative, of accompaniment, 126- 
127; of cause or reason, 142, 174, 
202, 208, 269-270, 364; of Cir- 
cumstance, 364, 367, 387; ethic, 
or ‘commodi et incommodi,’ 
160, 201, 218, 231, 514; instru- 
mental, 30, 142, 194, 202, 269- 
270; of manner, 210, 358; of 
measure, 192; of reference or 
relation, 56, 116, 231, 238, 253, 
262, 271, 388, 499, 526; due to 
anacoluthon, 479; due to paral- 
lelism, 131; two datives parallel 
but in different constructions, 54, 
107; with adjectives, 168; with 
idea of ‘ fighting,’ 142, 277; with 
κινδυνεύειν, 366; with μετέχειν, 98 ; 
with πιστεῦσαι, 25. 

Demes, 99. ; 

Demonstrative pronoun, referring 
to a distant or obscure subject, 21, 


539 


61, 74, 78, 118, 136, 235, 270, 289, 
317, 322, 338, 365, 389, 394, 398, 
435; neuter referring to mascu- 
line or feminine substantive, 115 ; 
as subject, attracted into gender 
of predicate, 164. 

Demosthenes, cited, in Boeot., 428 ; 
De Cor., 260, 335 ; Olynth., 34, 
157, 430; im Steph., A, 424; 
spurious Funeral Oration, 103. 

Demosthenes, death of, 458. 

Didot, 399. 

Difficulties im the narrative of 
Thucydides, 80, 85 ff., 117, 128, 
139, 168-160, 172, 200, 203, 205 ff, 

| 219, 222, 223, 231-232, 305, 306, 
309, 317, 319, 329-330, 344, 378- 
379, 403, 413, 429, 441, 471, 473- 
474, 475) 495, 530-531, 534-535. 

Digressions, in the history of Thucy- 
dides, 208. 

Dindorf, 440. 

Diodorus, cited, 46, 66, 68, 69, 70, 
87, 145, 205, 206, 223, 263, 265, 
380, 404, 407, 435, 455, 458, 530. 

Diogenes Laertius, 369. 

Dion Cassius, 382-383, 464. 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 211- 
212, 447, 448, 461-462, 498. 

Direct narration substituted for 
oblique, 318. 

Dittography, 111, 140, 183, 500. 

Dobree, 306, 489, 492. 

‘Dolphins,’ 427-428. 

Dorieus, 161. 

Drachma, Corinthian, A‘ginetan, 
201-202. 

Dress of early Hellenes, 7, 8. 

Dukas, 503. 

Duker, 522. 


E. 


Earthquakes, 91, 215. 

East wind, in Greece, 172. 

Eclipses, 88. 

Eion, 229. 

Elis, 101. 

Elliptical constructions, 324, 345, 
449, 494, 515. 

Elmsley, 499. 

Ennea Hodoi, colonization of, 70; 
destruction of, 66. 

Epexegesis, 82, 102, 122, 124, 158, 
177, 181, 189, 195, 208, 337, 364, 
395. 


540 


Ephorus, 66. 

Eruption of Mount Etna, 223. 

Eupolis, 133. 

Euripides, cited, Alcest., 490, 523; 
Bacch., 126-127; El., 336, 467; 
Hec., 490; Iph. in Aul., 450; 
Med., 177, 443; Orest., 27, 418, 
490; Phrixus, 454; Rhes., 245, 

- 490; Troad., 508. 

Euryelus, the, 429. 


F. 


Feminine, adverbial use of, 430-431. 

Festivals, cause of delay at Sparta, 
228; set aside or feigned by the 
Argives, 315. ' 

Force of words, lost as the sentence 
proceeds, 1, 120, 126, 180, 181, 
198, 313, 347. 

Four Hundred, revolution of the, 
499, 501, 518-519, 527, 

Frick, 78, Essay on Inscriptions, 
Ixxv. 

Future, force of, 91, 198, 230, 281, 
331, 334) 454- ; 


G. 

Galen, cited, 116, 146. 

Geminus, 88. 

Genitive, of cause or reason, 322- 
323; partitive, IOI, 177, 255, 437; 
of the object, 108; of place, 329; 
of price, 94; of reference, rela- 
tion, or respect, 55, 59, 83, 127, 
187, 216, 337, 433; of the sub- 
ject, 414; due to anacoluthon, 
94; explanatory, 428; after com- 
parative, 210; after verbal sub- 
stantive, 166; after πείθεσθαι, 450; 
after ξυν-, 177, 417; other uses, 
114, 209, 269, 294, 361, 526, 530. 

Genitive, absolute, referring to the 
subject of the main verb, 132, 
Cp. 344, 432, 439; leaving par- 
ticiple to be supplied, 207, 364- 
365; leaving subject to be sup- 
plied, 275, 483 ; impersonal, 483. 

Genuineness of Thuc. iv. 84, 211 ff.; 
of Thuc. viii, 461 ff. 

Geography of Thucydides, pp. 
Ixxix—]xxxiv. 

Gibbon, 78, 147 ff. 

Glosses, 35, 41, 47, 79, 112, 159, 
180, 212, 379, 384, 405, 408, 430, 
459, 497, 500. 


INDEX 1. 


Goethe, quoted, 54. 

Giller, 29, 190. 

Gorgias, 103. 

Graser, 359, 425, 428. 

Graves, 241. 

Grote, 24, 48, 100, 133, 137-138, 
146, 200, 252, 265, 268, 277, 304, 
306, 311, 315, 320, 322, 369, 377, 
397, 399 ff, 403, 410 ff, 414-415, 

465, 471, 494, 518, 527. 


H. 


Haacke, 46, 394, 490, 504, 532. 

Hagnon, 290. 

Harpocration, 49, 96. 

Hartung, 13, 56. 

Harvest, time of the, 86. 

Hecatombaeon, date of, 85, 89. 

Heilmann, 250. 

Hellenica, 215. 

Helots, massacre of, 265. 

Heraclides Ponticus, 206. 

Herbst, 31, 277, 279, 280, 529. 

Hermae, Mutilation of, and viola- 
tion of the Mysteries, 372 ff. 

Hermann, 41, 279, 343, 383, 468, 
487, 522. 

Herodotus, on the Pelasgians, 6; 
on the votes of the Spartan 
kings, 26; on the alliance be- 
tween Plataea and Athens, 200 ; 
on the number of the Athenian 
ships at Salamis, 56; on the 
earthquake at Delos, 91; cited, 
11, 13, 14, 23, 43, 70, 78, 80, 81, 
166, 194, 202, 228, 251, 252, 318, 
320, 342-343, 353, 397; 430, 451, 
465, 467, 476, 478, 522-523, 534. 

Hesychius, 49, 58, 328, 384, 468. 

Hieramenes, 495. 

Hippias and Hipparchus, 368-369. 

Hippocrates, 144-145, 382. 

Holm, 408, 429, 456. 

Homer, quoted, 12, 29, 62, 166, 220, 
380-381, 452; referred to by 
Thucydides, 18, 20. 

Homeric hymns,why called προοίμια, 
219 ff.; text of them as quoted 
by Thucydides, 220. 

Hultsch, 202. 

Hume, quoted, 82. 

Hyperbaton, 63, 324, 340, 434, 479. 

Hyperbolus, 505-506. 

Hyperides, 103, 109. 


INDEX I. 


Ideler, 88, 89. 

Imperfect, 270 ; imperfect and per- 
fect, 309; ‘for pluperfect,’ 314, 
424, 470. ; 

Indicative, in protasi instead of op- 
tative, 162; in apodosi instead of 
optative and dy, 257; introduced 
into oblique narration, 482, 507. 

Infinitive, government of; 15-16, 25, 
35, 36, 44, 62, 73, 93, 102, 125, 
158, 179, 195, 207, 211, 262, 267, 
275, 310, 314, 315, 326, 335, 346- 
347, 363, 387-388, 392, 401, 472, 
486 ; with article, 111; with article 
in genitive, 322-323; ‘for im- 
perative’ (ὃ), 288, 363; ofpurpose, 
244; in relative clause of oblique 
narration, 432; after ὅτι, 311. 

Inscriptions, 100, 215; tribute lists, 
49, 330; sepulchral, 50-51, 70, 282- 
283; votive, 78, 370; financial, 88, 
95 ; treaties, 311 ff., 328 ; decrees, 
472, 521; restoration of them, 
89. See Essay on Inscriptions, 
ix—Ixxviii. 

Inversion, of logical order, 370. 

Ionians, 97. 


Irony, 75, 203, 255, 294, 357, 386, 


391, 526. 
Isocrates, cited, 46, 190, 191, 202, 


263, 310, 375, 383, 396, 397, 498. 
Isthmian games, time of, 468. 


J. 
Jebb, 103, 374. 
Jelf, 111, 126, 134, 139, 167, 177, 
237, 500. 
Justin, 458. 


Kennedy, 241. 

Kirchhoff, 95, 282, 285, 311, 330, 521. 

K6hler, 49, 295, 296, 297, 298, 330. 

Krause, 468. 

Kriger, τό, 46, 47, 68, 69, 87, 129, 
162, 233, 385, 438, 454, 463, 464, 


467, 481, 494, 512. 
Kumanudes, 370. 


L. 


Lacedaemonians, their dress, 8; 
kings, 26, 319; character, 69, 
228, 253, 268, 296, 309; their 
navy, 90, 234, 296; their army, 


@ 


541 


320, 321-322; treaties with the 
Persians, 481, 495; contrasted 
with the Athenians, 526; appa- 
rently confused with Pelopon- 
nesians, 106. 

Leake, 221, 225, 226, 286. 

Leros, 475. 

Lindau, 476. 

Linwood, 433-434. 

Litotes, 61, 72, 200, 269. 

Littré, 146-147. 

Livy, 145, 169, 318, 346, 468. 

Lobeck, 266, 430-431. 

Locrians, 219. 

Lucian, 418, 464. 

Lucretius, 145. 

oe cited, 13, 96-97, 487, 514, 

20. 


Lyell, 215. 


Lysias, 103, 290, 490, 502, 519 ff., 
524, 527 ; Pseudo-Lysias, 374, 460. 


M. 


Macedonians, 141. 

Madvig, 47, 478, 486. 

Malea, 159-160, 161. ᾿ 

* Marcellinus,’ 303, 461. 

Matthiae, 499. 

Mazzini, quoted, 54. 

Megara, history of, 263. 

Megarian exiles, 259. 

Meibomius, 478. 

Meineke, 240, 319, 428. 

Melos and Thera, 330, Essay on 
Inscriptions, xlvi. 

Messenians of Naupactus, 68, 223, 


439. 

Methymna, 156. 

Metics, 96. 

Meton, 87 ff. 

Meursius, 369. 

Middle, force of, 162, 467; future 
middle in passive sense, 381, 419. 

Milton, quoted, 321.- 

Mitylené, topography of, 159-160. 

Mnemosyné, 384. 

Mommsen, A., 86, 88, 89. 

Month, intercalary, 87 ff.; civil 
and lunar, Io!. 

MSS., Cass. (H.), 413, 459, 533; 
Aug. (F.), 31, 204, 382, 418; Cl. 
(N.), 183, 204, 232, 282, 382, 
484, 509, 522, 524, 531; Ven., 
204, 232, 267, 459, 522, 525, 5313 
Laur. (C.), 41, 50, 116, 138, 140, 


542 


378, 522: Ξ (6) 459, 514; F.(f), 
459, 516; Pal. (E.), 381; It. (A.), 

175, 484; Vat (B.), 16, 175, 353; 
408, 413, 418, 419, 420, 422, 424, 
425, 430, 432, 434, 439, 447, 450, 
454, 459, 473) 475, 480, 484, 486, 
492, 493, 495, 496, 497, 509, sie 
513, 516, 522, 525, 526, 532; H. 
(h.), 340, 342, 349, 353, 371» 408, 
413, 418, 419, 420, 422, 423, 424, 
430, 434, 4 1; Reg. G. (g.), 11, 
175) 292; Gr. (Κ. .}) a 459, Ἐ22; 
I. (i.), 340, 440 459; D. (d.), 459, 
509; E. (e. ies vind 92 


(O. ) 3315 ; P 
British Museum), 


497. 
Miiler, E., 88, 89. 
Miller, Fra Hist. Graec., 341. 
Miiller-Striibing, 46, 99, 290. 
Munro, 145. 
Mure, 105. 
Mycenae, 16. 


3372 439, 493, 


N. 


Napier, quoted, 281. 

Naupactus, 68-69, 439. 

Naval tactics, 133, 426, 427-428. 

Navy, the Peloponnesian, 90; the 
Athenian, 90, 100, 167 ff., 506. 

Negative, use of, 59, 288, 437, 445, 
485, 487; pleonastic, 203, 288, 
487; position of, 352, 372 ; omit- 
ted owing to confusion, 186, 452. 

Nepos, 310. 

Neuter, 216, 363. 

Neuter plural, used instead of sing- 
ular, 189, cp. 191, 217; takes 
plural verb, 469. 

Neuter pronoun, referring to mas- 
culine or feminine substantive, 
186, 424. 

Newton and Hicks, 50, 95, 282; 
Newton, 328, 370. 

Nicephorus, 62. 

Nicias, character of, 240, 294, 346, 
357, 416, 453-454 ; death of, 458- 


459. 

Niebuhr, 341. 

Nominative ‘absolute,’ or ‘nomin- 
ativus pendens,’ 23, 190, 229, 
245, 269, 394; due to change 


INDEX 1. 


from preceding construction, ΟἹ, 


116, 121, 251, 276, 309, 376, 490. 
Numerals, how written in MSS., 


45; , 
Numerical errors in MSS. of Thu- 
cydides, 46-47, 232, 252, 531. 


Ο. 


Octaeteris, 88-89. 

Oligarchical party at Athens, 374- 
375, 395, 489-490, 518, 519. 

Oligarchy, in early times, 20. 

Optative, deliberative, 235; in 
protasi, instead of indicative, 73, 
107; iterative or indefinite opta- 
tive of past time, 92, 140, 214, 
448, 452, 499; optative and sub- 
junctive in parallel clauses, 235, 
327. 

Oracles, 30, 121, 215, 217, 278, 295. 

Order of words, peculiar, 159, 160, 
201, 207, 233, 299) 347. 

Ovid, 145. 


P. 

Paches, 187. 

Palmer, 480, 493. 

‘Parallel passages,’ fallacy of, 233- 
234, 476. 

Parallelism of dissimilar construc- 
tions, 1) 2, 14 ff, 27, 30, 51, 54, 
94, 107, 156, 181, 184, 242, 250, 
251, 265, 299, 355, 363, 364, 372, 
380, 419, 457; parallelism con- 
cealing flaws in expression, 112, 
335; leading to irregularity, 131. 

Parenthesis, 47, 235, 239, 394, 395, 
492, 503, 508. 

Paronomasia, 236. 

Parthenon, the, 95. 

Participle, emphatic, 26, 75, 239, 
274, 327, 350, 351; parallel to a 
finite verb, 14-15, 101, 207, 241, 
267,416,419, 503, 525, Cp.493; toa 
relative clause, 27 ; one participle 
subordinate to another, 189, 355, 
389, 457; participle apparently 
taking the place of an infinitive, 
3, 257, 342, 534; with substantive, 
in unusual position, 31 ff., 64; 
agreeing with the principal of 
two substantives, 497 ; participle 
of substantive verb to be sup- 


plied, 116, 165, 239, 479. 


INDEX 1. 


Party- feeling in Hellas, 
changes of, 156, 375. 

Past tenses, peculiar uses of, 17, 36, 
97, 122-123, 165, 198, 199, 296. 

Pausanias, cited, 66, 68, 78, 99, 161, 
206, 225, 397, 458. 

Pay, of sailors, 344; of senators, 


rapid 


503. . 

‘ Peace of Cimon,’ 465, 494. 

Pelasgians, 6. 

Peloponnesians, length of their in- 
vasions of Attica, 86; their army, 
262-263; their navy, 90, 278. 

People, name of a, put fortheirrepre- 
sentatives, 397, 512, cp. 310, 516. 

Perdiccas, 413. 

Perfect tense, 169, 232, 316, 338, 


379- 

Pericles, funeral speech over those 
who fell at Samos, 103. 

Perioeci, 472. 

Persia, assists the Peloponnesians, 
174, 175. 

Phanodemus, 66. 

Pherecrates, 428. 

Philistus, 407, 435, 458. 

Phocians, the, 218. 

Phormio, 133. 

Photius, 49, 286. 

Phrynichus, 477, 4913; assassina- 
tion of, 520-521. 

Phrynichus (Comic poet), 240. 

Pindar, cited, 11, 99, 219. 

Pisistratus, 368-369. 

Plague, 121, 143 ff.; at Constanti- 
nople, 147 ff.; at Florence, 151 ff. 

Plataea, 130, 190, 191, 194; date 
of attack upon, 85 ff. 

Plataeans, 438-439. 

Platner, 58. 

Plato, cited, Apol., 272 ; Crit., 13 ; 
Gorg., 141; Lach., 272 ; Legg., 43, 
180, 354, 394, 523 ; Menex., 103 ; 
Phaed., 499, §10; Phaedr., 214; 
Polit., 118; Prot., 111, 183, 318, 
346, 361, 445; Rep., 94, 118, 135, 
183, 289, 355, 453; Symp., 168, 
272, 310, 373 ; Theaet., 280, 353 ; 
Tim., 464. 

Pseudo-Plato, Alcib. i, 349; Hip- 
parch., 369. 

Pleonasm, 1, 38, 40, 57, 114, 120, 
162, 172, 257, 365, 393, 418, 500. 

Pliny, 225, 405, 407. ᾿ 

Pluperfect, 285, 393, 522. 


543 


Plural, 392, 401, 507. 

Plutarch, cited, Lives, Alcib., 310, 
373-375, 395, §06, 520-521; Aris- 
tid. 194, 506; Cic., 4313; Cim., 
66; Lysand., 206, 298 ; Nic., 187, 
240, 404, 433, 458, 506, 524; 
Pericl., 103, 404; other works, 
217, 220, 286, 431 ; Pseudo-Plut., 
Dec. Rhet., 502. 

Pluygers, 49, 286, 384. 

Pollux, 58, 202. 

Polyaenus, 485. 

Polybius, 428, 431. 

Poppo, 2, 38, 41, 46, 82, 92, 106, 
113, 115, 134, 157, 165, 176, 177, 
178, 191, 196, 211, 230, 244, 288, 
307, 318, 349, 360, 363, 369, 413, 
415, 446, 447, 463, 485, 488, 509, 
510, 511, 512, 514, 517, 531, 532. 

Portus, 500. 

Possessive pronoun, used objec- 
tively, 35. 

Prepositions, use of, 127; in com- 
position, used to repeat a verb in 
a more emphatic form, 196, 311. 

Present tense, force of, 64, 71-72, 
470, 482; present-imperfect par- 
ticiple, 119; used where future 
would be expected, 239; present 
and perfect, 309. 

Procopius, 147-148. 

Pronouns, different, used of the 
same person or thing, 184. See 
Demonstrative, Possessive, Rela- 
tive Pronoun. 

Ptolemy, 87. 

Pythian Games, their date, 285. 


R. 


Rawlinson, 78, 465. 

Redlich, 88, 89. 

Reiske, 393, 515. 

Relative pronoun, referring to ob- 
scure antecedent, 108, 136, 254, 
443, 444; singular, referring to 
plural antecedent, 91; masculine, 
referring to implied personal 
antecedent, 112, 235, 446; used 
with two shades of meaning, 173; 
referring to negative idea implied 
in preceding words, 281, 381; 
antecedent fused with relative, 
108, 113, 127, 257, 269; rela- 
tive with subjunctive, 418; used 
as demonstrative, 243; due to 


544 


anacoluthon, 514; other uses of, 
60, 79, 164, 336, 390. 

Repetition, of a word, 18, 307, 501, 
504; of an idea, 20, 92, 116-117, 
126, 142, 165, 362, 379, 393; of 
a word in a different sense, 74, 
165, 453; Of a clause in a new 
form, 162; repetition of letters 
or words a cause of corruption 
in MSS., 111, 140, 183, 279, 342, 
500. 

Resumption, 1, 19, 20, 37, 92, 97, 
114) 124, 139, 200, 208, 243, 250, 
262, 289-290, 300, 365, 388, 424, 
446, 495, 530. 

Revolutions, in Hellas contempo- 
rary with Thucydides, 205. 

Rhetoric of Thucydides, 432, 437. 
See Speeches. 

Rider (Old English comedy), 112- 


113. 
5. 


Schaefer, 367. 

Scholia, on Thucydides, 29, 112, 
212, 294, 353; 384, 430, 440, 511-- 
512; on A:schines, 70; on Aris- 
tides (Rhetor.), 296; on Aristo- 
phanes, 427; on Pindar, 468. 

Schémann, 96. 

Scho6ne, 313. 

Sentences, attempt to express two 
in one, 164, 199, 288, 291, 333, 
421. 

Shakespeare, quoted, 38, 54, 163. 

Sheppard and Evans, 138. 

Shilleto, 34, 36, 38. 

Sicily, 341. 

Simonides, 3722. 

Singular verb with plural substan- 
tive, 177. 

Socrates, at Delium, 272. 

Sophocles, cited, Aj., 11, 194, 301, 
476; Ant., 184; El, 11, 180, 194; 
O. C., 260; O. T., 27, 134, 323, 
454; Phil., 18, 158, 245, 523; 
Trach., 11, 245. 

Southey, Life of Nelson, quoted, 
117. 

Spartans, 291 ; their character, 266; 
Spartans and Helots, 265. 

Speeches, refer to previous speeches, 
61, 181, 197, 391, cp. 384; antici- 
pate later events, 83, 125, 332, 354, 
365, Cp. 413, 432; one speech 


INDEX 4. 


may sum up many others, 103; 
funeral orations, 103; appro- 
priate or inappropriate expres- 
sions in the speeches of Thucy- 
dides, 104-105, 361, 366, 391; 
rhetorical inconsistencies, 113, 
164-165, 356, 362, 392, 453; per- 
sonification in, 184; Thucydides 
introduces his own reflections 
into them, 352, 354. 

Sphacteria, topography of, 224 ἔξ 

Spring, meaning of, in Thucydides, 
8-.-. 


Stan’, 159, 180, 211, 308, 434, 476, 
486. 


Stater, 201-202. 

Stein, 78, 342. 

Stephanus Byzantinus, 48-49, 71, 
100, 376, 380, 407. 

Strabo, 159, 225, 227, 259, 271, 
2 


Subject of verb, supplied from the 
context, 3, 5, 8, 17, 65, 186, 192, 
205, 222, 230, 236, 257, 262, 337, 
348, 469, 493, §22; changed as 
the sentence proceeds, 23, 41, 171, 
189, 232, 266, 276, 314, 329, 331, 
387, 402, 431, 488. . 

Subjunctive, after relative pro- 
noun, 418 ; alternating with op- 
tative, 448. 

Subordinate clauses, expressed as 
if co-ordinate, 8, 39, 75, 110, 449, 
494. 

Suetonjus, 294. 

Suidas, 227, 238, 464, 468, 502, 510. 

Summer and winter, in Thucydides, 
32, 299, 300, 324. 

Syracusan expedition, 128; anti- 
cipations of, 239, 254, 294. 

Syracuse, topography of, 380, 399, 
402, 408, 435-436; siege of, 
399 ff., 402, 403, 404, 407, 408, 
409 ἢ, 427, 429, 441 ; parties in, 
433-434, 459; retreat of the Athe- 
nians from, 455 ff., 460. 


T. 


Tacitus, 242, 318. 

Talent, gold and silver, 95-96; as 
measure of weight, 418. 

Tautology, or repetition, attempt 
to avoid, 91, 165, 184, 192, 314, 
336, 357, 446, 488. 


INDEX 1. 


Text of Thucydides, not affected 
by discovery of a fragmentary 
inscription, 313. 

Theognis, 12, 488-489. 

Theopompus, 461, 494, 502. 

Theramenes, character of, 523-524. 

Thespiae, 397. 

Thessaly, 100. 

Thirlwall, 265, 304, 309, 369. 

Thompson, 103. 

Thria or Thrio, 71. 

Thucydides, a sufferer in the 
plague, 145; does not pass moral 
judgments, 203, 501; date at 
which different parts of the His- 
tory were written, 208, 223; 
vividness of his narrative due to 
testimony of eyewitnesses (?), 228 ; 
loss of Amphipolis and banish- 
ment, 303-304; his account of 
Sicily, 341 ; omits names of con- 
temporaries, 145, 375; not al- 
ways clear in description, 427 ; 
corrects himself, 167, 438; gen- 
uineness of iii. 84, 211 ff.; of 
Book viii, 461 ff. ; composition 
of the History, 462-463, 517. 

Thurii, 376. 

Timaeus, 458. 

Tissaphernes, his sacrifice to Arte- 
mis, 535. 

Transposition of words, 170. 
Treasury, public, of Athens, 95, 
Essay on Inscriptions, xlix ff. 
Treaties, 278, 294 ff., 301, 311 ff. 

324, 481, 495. 

Tribute, of the Athenian allies, 250, 
296 ff.; imposed on Melos and 
Thera (?), 330; five per cent. duty 
substituted for it, 421, 422; im- 
posed by the Persian king (?), 465. 

Tribute-lists, 49, 296 ff, Essay on 
Inscriptions, xxix ff. 

Tripod, dedicated after the battle 
of Plataea, 78. 

Triremes, speed of, 138-139 ; con- 
struction of, 425; pay of, 477-478. 

Trophies, 2 260, 


VU. 
Ullrich, 47, 298. 


VOL, II. 


545 


Unger, 88, 89. 
Unusual words or constructions, 
not a proof of spuriousness, 213. 


V. ᾿ 

Valckenaer, 353. 

Valla, 250, 533. 

Variation, of construction, disguised 
by verbal similarity, 375 ; of style 
to suit the sense, 100. 

Virgil, 145, 318. 

Vischer, 529. 

W. 

War, Peloponnesian, the duration 
of, 298-299. 

Warre (Ancient Naval Tactics), 
138. 

Weakness, of construction, rare in 
Thucydides, 125 ; supported, 194, 
210, 244,253, 433. 

Wilkins, 54. 

Wolf, 219-220. 

Women, character of,in the Funeral 
Oration, 113. 


X. 


Xenophon, Thuc. viii. ascribed to 
him, 461 ; cited, Anab., 139, 243, 
371; Cyr., 13, 56, 97, 243, 467; 
Hell., 33, 77, 111, 161, 205, 252, 
315, 320, 332, 396, 397, 421, 468, 
477, 478, 481, 486, 495, 499, 501, 
502, 510, 519, 520, 523, 524) 525, 
528, 529, 530, 535; Mem., 59, 63, 
424, 463, 486; oe Re Equest., 
499; de Rep. Lac. 320; Sym mb 
404; Xenophon ) de Rep. At 
412. 


Υ. 


Year, natural and artificial division 
of, 299-300; difference between 
the civil and natural, 86. 


Z. 


Zeugma, 328, 333, 392, 


438, 449; 
cp. 386-387, 437. 


INDEX II. 


A. 
dyos, Pp. 76. 
᾿Αθῆναι, ai, 444. 
αἰδώς and αἰσχύνη, 62. 
αἰσθάνεσθαι, 55, 492. 
ἀκμάζοντος τοῦ σίτου, 86. 
ἄκρατος, 116. 
ἀκριβής, 248. 
ἁλίσκεσθαι, 428. 
ἀλκή, 135. 
ἀλλά, 128, 415-416, 447. 
ἀλλὰ μηδέ 181. 
ἄλλο τι, 83. 
ἄλλοθεν, 27. 


ἄλλος, 27, 64, 72, 92, 95, 158, 161, 


301, 327, 454, 525. 

ἄλλως, 99, 508 

ἄλλως re, 383. 

dua, 336. 

duapraver Oa, 198. 

ἄν, with aorist infin. (parallel to 
future infin.), 367; with future 
infin., 380; with imperative (?), 
443; with imperf. indic., 319; with 
participle, 214; optative with and 
without ἄν in parallel clauses, 
235-236; a omitted, 371, 395, 
513-514; position of, 35. 

ἀναιρεῖν, 8. 

ἀναίσχυντος, 120. 

ἀνακλᾶν, 418. 

ἀνάκρουσις, 426. 

ἀναρριπτεῖν, 335. 

ἀναστροφή, 137. 

ἀνέχειν, 252, 

ἀνίσταμαι, 343. 

ἀντί, 269 ; in composition, 193, 392, 


ἀντίπαλος, 137. 

ἄνωθεν, 263-264. 

ἀξίωσις, 208. 

ἀξυγκρύτητος, 525. 

ἀπαίρω, 330. 

ἀπαρχή, 353-354. 

ἀπό, 77, 131, 361, 384, 422 ; 
position, 240, 449. 


> 8 ΄ 
απὸ Tovrov, 241. 


in com- 


ἀποδιδώναι, 277. 

ἀποκρύπτω, 418. 

ἀπόλλυσθαι, 451. 

ἅπορος, 242. 

ἀποσιμοῦν, 238. 

ἀπόστασις, 170. 

ἀποστείλω, 342. 

dpa, i in the sense of dp’ ov, 56. 

ἀργυρολόγοι νῆες, 250. 

ἀρετή, 100, 501-502. 

ἄρτ ty 157. 

ἀρχῇ, 528. 

ἀρχήν, 305. 

᾿Ασσύρια γράμματα, 250-251. 

drpaxtos, 245. 

αὐτόνομος, 185. 

αὐτός, emphatic, 39, 130, 171, 256, 
268, 279, 300, 311, 315, 333, 356, 


369, 371, 402, 404, 424, 450, 452, 
510. 


In oblique cases, reference ob- 
scure, 110, 132, 185, 186, 221, 235, 
236, 314, 330, 337, 345, 348, 427, 
444, 454, 468, 500, 512, 521; for 
σφῶν, etc., 434, 446; avrd=raura, 
383; In accusative, to be sup- 
plied after verb or participle, 270, 
409, 425; ro αὐτό, reference ob- 
scure, 236. 

αὐτοῦ, 241, 512. 

ἀφανίζεσθαι, 481. 

ἀφίστασθαι, 165-166, 393. 
B. 

βασιλεύς, ὁ βασιλεύς, 488. 

βέλτιστοι, 488 

βοηθεῖν, 280. 

βουλὴ, pay of, 503. 


r, 


yp, reference obscure, 22, 48, 52, 
IO], III, 120, 141, 156, 181, 229, 
251-252, 254, 261, 281, 300, 379, 
384,449, 505 ; due to anacoluthon, 
55- 

γέ, force of, 509-510, 518; repeated, 
264. 


INDEX I. 


γνώμη, 53: 
Γραΐκη, ἡ, 100. 
Δ. 

δαπανᾶν, active, 227. 

δαπάνη, 174-175. 

δέ, 130, 258 ; answering to re, 16, 
18, 289, 455, 457; CP. 389. 

δ᾽ οὖν, 50, 510. 

δεδιέναι and φοβεῖσθαι, 37. 

δεῖν, ellipse of, III, 429. 

δεινὰ ποιεῖν, ποιεῖσθαι, 309-310. 

δεινότης, 502. 

δεῖσθαι, = δεῖν, 260. 

δεχήμερος, 303. 

én, 248. 

δηθεν, 199, 274. 

διά, 61, 111, 166, 274, 346, 479 ; ἴῃ 
composition, 117, 352, 396, 519. 

διὰ πλείονος, 76. 

διαβάλλω, 510. 

διάβροχοι, 414. 

διαιρεῖν, 302. 

διαναυμαχεῖν, 511. 

διαφέρειν, 369. 

διαφορά, διάφορος, 207. 

δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων, 58. See pp. 
Ixxxv—Ixxxvill. 

δικαιοῦν, 123. 

δικαίωμα, 388. 

δικαίως, 443. 

δικαίωσις, 208, 

διό, 280. 

διόλλυσθαι, 180. 

δοκεῖν, 121, 127, 161-162, 513. 

δρώμενον, τὸ, 349. 

δύνασθαι, 61, 366 


δυνατοί, οἱ, 497. 


Ἑ. 
ἔγκλημα, 42. 
εἰ with fut. indic. 1» 526. 
ei καὶ, and καὶ εἰ, 237, 394, 499. 
εἶδος, 196, 518. 
εἰρομένη λέξις, 3, 10. 
ἐκ, 298, 415-316 ; in composition, 
201. 
ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίον, 165, 231. 
ἐκβιβάζω, 334. 
ἐκεῖνος, 334; used in resumptions, 


97. 
ἐκεχειρία, 286. 
ἐκπολεμεῖν, 495. 
ἐλεύθερος, 185. 
ἐλλείπει, 335-336. 
ἐμβολή and προσβολή, 448. 


547 


ἐν, 127, 247, 439 ; in composition, 
100. 

ἐν τοῖς πλεῖστοι, πρῶτοι, etc., 167— 
168. 

ἐν τούτῳ, ΟΙ, 233. 

ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ, 275. 

ἐν ᾧ, 104, 370-371, 396. 

ἕνεκα, 507, 523. 

ἐντός, 92. 

ἐντυγχάνων, ὁ, 245. 

ἐξαιρεῖν, 310. 

ἐξείργεσθαι, 95, 202. 

ἐπάγεσθαι, 162. ν 

ἐπανάστασις, 170. 

ἐπαναχωρεῖν, 267. 

ἐπανέρχομαι, 215. 

ἐπεί, Ὁ. 118. 

ἐπειδή, 262. 

ἐπελπίζω, 464, 492. 

ἐπεξιέναι, 63. 

ἐπέχειν, 221, 534. 

ἐπήρχοντο, from ἐπέρχομαι OF ἐπάρ- 
χομαι ἢ, 279. 

ἐπὶ, 71, 137-138, 255, 332, 418, 443, 
490, 508; in composition, 75, 
193, 255, 306-307, 419. 

ἐπὶ Θράκης, 216. 

ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις, 503. 

ἐπὶ πλεῖον, 101. 

ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, 3. 

ἐπὶ πολύ, 226-227. 

ἐπὶ τούτοις, 51, 443. 

ἐπιβάται, 474, 406. 

ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι, 208-209. 

ἐπιθαλάσσιος, 221. 

ἐπιτείχισις, ἐπιτείχισμα, 82, 5258. 

ἐπωτίδες, 425. 

ἔρανος, 111. 

ἔργον, 387. See λόγος and ἔργον. 

ἐς, 4, 64, 106, 124, 128, 211, 350; in 
composition, 228. 

ἔσω, 275. 

érat, 328. 

εὔπορος, 489. 

εὐτέλεια, 107. 

ἔφοδος, 402. 

ἐφορμᾶσθαι, 367. 

ἔχειν, in a double sense, 328 ; = παρέ- 
χειν, 229. 


Ζ. 


ἡγεῖσθαι, etc. = ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖν, 111. 
ἤδη, 337- 

qv, with optative, 182--1823. 

ἣν καὶ, 182. 


Nn 2 


548 


qv and εἰ, 158, 233. 
ἡσυχάζω, 228, 306. 
ἤτοι γε---ἢ, τοῦ 


Θ. 


θεός and θεοί, 454. 
θήκη, 8, 120. 
I, 


«and οι, pronunciation of, 121. 
ἰδέα, 196 

ἰδίᾳ, 432-433, 511. 

i tos, 170. 

ἱερός and ὅσιος, 119. 

ἵνα, of motion to a place, 241. 
toa καὶ, 166. 

igo-, 362. 

ἴσος, 419. 


καθέζεσθαι, 445. 

καθίστασθαι, 157, 286, 507. 

καί, emphatic, 1, 21, 22, 57, 64, 104, 
11S, 124, 166, 162-163, 195, 200, 
207, 218, 230, 237, 271, 277, 317; 
337, 372, 388, 389, 391, 402, 417, 
424, 426, 442, 447, 450. 

καί to be taken with εἰ or qv, not 
with the word which it precedes, 
182, 394 ; with the whole clause, 
236, 389. 

καί =‘ also,’ 36, 63, 92, 104, 231, 233, 
237, 269, 277, 280, 287, 323, 357; 
375-376, 413, 442, 471, 473, 479, 
511; used inaccurately, 76, 126, 
181 ; correlative use, 36, 191. 

καί, with antecedent not conse- 
quent, 104, 257, 450, 499; Cp. 291. 

kai in apodosi, 99; connecting 
equivalent expressions, 57, 60, 
172, 339, 416, 446; connecting 
words in different construction, 
136, see Parallelism, Index I; 
connecting disparate ideas, 479. 

xai=‘and that,’ 259; used when 
ἀλλά would be expected, 274, 277. 

καί---καί, 78, 124, 190, 370, 382, 454, 
509; the second καί forgotten, 
214. 

καί---ἢ, 378. 

καί---δέ, 10, 437. 

καὶ εἰ and εἰ καὶ, 237. 

καὶ ἥν, 174. 

καὶ νῦν, 240. 

καὶ πάνυ, 400-401. 

καί---τέ, 10, 366, 503; in Homer, 12. 


INDEX I. 


καὶ ὥς, 176, 451, 491, 493, 514. 

καινός, κενός, 173. 

καιρός, 38, 107. 

καίτοι, 107, 126, 180. 

καλῶς, 7, 308, 347. 

κατά, 379 ; in composition, 196. 
καθ᾽ ἕν, 451. 

καθ» ἂν ἕκαστον, 348, 448. 

καθ᾽ ὅσον εἰ, 393. 

καταβοή, 515. 

καταγιγνώσκω, 468. 

καταλαμβάνω, 497. 

καταλύειν, 423. 

καταντικρύ, 438. 

κατασκενάζεσθαι, 465. 

κατασκευή, 17, 465. 

κατέχω, 397, 477; 531. 

κίνδυνος, κινδυνεύω, 26, 187, 392. 

κοῖλος, 458. 

κοινῇ, 266. 

κοινωνεῖν, 467. 

κοσμεῖν, 474. 

κρίνω, 331. 

κύκλος, the Athenian, 399 ff. 


A. 


λαμβάνειν, 178, IOI, 194-195. 

Any, 325-326. 

Adyos, 185, 437-438, 464, 517. 

λόγος and ἔργον, 186, 261, 349, 487, 
507. 

λυπηρός, used as a substantive, 486. 


M. 

μάλιστα, 20-21. 

μᾶλλον, 78, 117, 197, 208, 256, 329, 
452, 504 ; omitted, 172, 395, 413. 

μᾶλλον ἣ ov, 177. 

μάντις, 463-464. 

μέλλω, μέλλησις, 165. 

μέν, out of place, 222; with the 
moreemphatic of twoclauses, 110, 
277, 281; with the less emphatic, 
347. 

μέν and δέ, 121, 329, 414 ; μέν 
answered by τέ or καί, 129. 

μὲν οὖν, 122. 

μέντοι, 78, 261, 512. 

μέρος, I 

μέρος τι, 423. 

μετά, 308 ; ; in composition, 393. 

μεταβολή and μετάστασις, 115. 

μεταλαμβιίνειν, 352, 393. 

μεταποιεῖσθαι, 118. 


INDEX I. 


μετέχειν, 62, 513 ; with dative, 98. 
ίχρι, 140, 285. 
P 63, 72, 135, 2715 371, 404, 485. 
N. 

μον, 160, 367. 
robanisders, 307. 
nites, 459. 
My, 1255 = ἐτι (ἢ, 439. 


Ο. 

οἰκεῖν, 188. 

οἰκεῖν ἐς, 106. 

οἰκησις, 304. 

οἰκόπεδα, 270. 

ὀλίγος, 453. 
ὅμοιος, 197, 517-518. 
ὁμοιοτέλεντον, 279, 344, 440. 
ὁμοίως, 201. 
ὅμως, 186, 317, 381, 382, 406, 438, 


ὁρᾶν, construction of, with participle, 


, oF 

opyn, 511-512. 

ὀρθῶς, 135. 

ὁρμᾶσθαι, 469. 
α μή; 234. 

ὅσον, 418, 421. 

ὅστις, in indirect statement, 195, 
501 ; in indirect question, 240; 
referring to a definite antecedent, 
167; causal, 522-523; for ds, 


or ay, 52. 
οὐδέ, 39, 140, 249, 389, 444. 
οὐδέ---οὐδέ, 139. 
οὐδὲ γάρ, 414. 
οὐκ ἔλασσον, 239, 443. 
οὐχ ἧσσον, 322. 
οὐχ ὁμοίως, 76. 
οὔτε---τέ, 428. 
οὗτος, reference obscure, 21. See 
Demonstrative pronoun, Index I. 
οὕτω, 222, 284. 
ὄχλος, 474-475. 
Il. 
πάθος =‘ passion,’ 214. 
πάνυ, 463, 490, 515. 
wapa, 187, 279) 364, 371, 477-478, 
488; in composition, 298, 323. 
mwapaBaiverOa,used inaccurately, 184. 


παραλαμβάνειν, 253. 


549 


παραρρήγνυμι, 323. 
παρασκευάζεσθαι, 93, 465. 
παραφέρειν, 298. 
πάροδος, 76-77, 216. 
was τις, 441. 
πάτρια, τά, 328. 
πατρικαὶ βασιλεῖαι, 20. 
πέλαγος, 160. 
περί, 57,74, 75) 127, 361; in com- 
position, 161. 
περιγίγνεσθαι, 333, 344-345. 
περιεῖναι, 136. 
περιΐστασθαι, 228. 
περιορᾶσθαι, 305-306. 
περιουσία, 335. 
περιπλεῖν, 239, 480. 
περίπολοι, 96. 
περισσεύειν, 130. 
πιστεῦσαι, with double construction, 
25. 
πιστός, 180, 468. 
πλείους, 171, 323 ; τὰ πλείω, 60, 105. 
πλοῖον, 412 ; πλοῖα μακρά, 21. 
πλοῦς, 158. 
ποιεῖν, 232. 
ποιεῖσθαι, 52, 58, 251, 372. 
πολεμεῖν and πολεμοῦν, 237. 
πολιτεία, idea of, anticipated by 
Thucydides, 529-530. 
πολλάκις, 94. 
πονηρία, 489. 
ποῦ, 476. 
πού, 192, 333, 420, 433, 442. 
πρεσβεύεσθαι, 517. 
πρεσβύτατοι, 96. 
πρό, 307, 308 ; in composition, 210, 
218, 247, 532. 
προδιδόναι, 343. 
προθυμεῖσθαι, 230. 
προκόπτειν, 255, 437. 
πρός, 113, 182, 273, 390-391, 508 ; 
in composition, 181, 229, 360, 
464, 469, 482, 499. 
προσγίγνεσθαι, 135. 
προσήρχοντο, from προσέρχομαι or 
προσάρχομαι ὃ, 279-280. 
προσιέναι, 240. 
προσκέπτομαι, 400. 
προσπέπτειν, 221-222. 
προστιθέναι, 210. 
προστίθεσθαι, 106. 
προτιθέναι, 210. 
προτίθεσθαι, 110, 512. 
πρόφασις, 248, 414-415. 
προφέρειν, 65. 


550 


πρῶτον ἄρχειν, ἄρχεσθαι, 120-121. 
πρῶτος, 266, 513. 


P. 
ῥᾷον, 209. 

2. 
σκοπῶ, 498. 


σπένδειν = σπένδεσθαι, 273. 

σπεύδειν, 292. 

σπονδαί, without the article, 44-45. 

στέρεσθαι, 276. 

στρατηγοί, 45. 

συγγενεις, 201. 

συγκλείω, 501. 

συγχωρεῖν, 309. 

συμβύλαιαι δίκαι, 58. See pp. ἰχχχν- 
Ixxxviii. 

συμμαχικός, 467. 

σύμμαχον, 344. 

συμμοροι, 271. 

σύν, in composition, 64, 109, 112, 
449, 463, 474, 487. 

συνεχῶς, 371. 

συνοικίζειν, 157. 

σφραγίς, 77. 

σφῶν, σφίσι, etc., 175, 244, 313-314, 
322, 367, 376, 384-385, 418, 434, 
487, 494. 

σχολή, 289-200. 

σωφροσύνη, in political sense, 498. 

σώφρων, 194, 196. 


r, 

ταρσός, 428. 

τάττεσθαι, 202. 

τέ, in Homer, 12; use of, relic of 
the εἰρομένη λέξις, 3; emphatic, 
183 connects participle with 
finite verb, 14. See Participle, 
Index I. 

τέ, out of place, 9, 13, 14, 16, 94, 
98 (?), 199, 229, 240-241, 264, 266— 
267, 288, 306, 317, 377, 472; Ccon- 
nected by sound only with καί 
following, 13, 79, 302-303, 417, 
470; with no καί following, 366; 
‘goes with the whole sentence,’ 
16, 98, 334-335) 455; followed 
by de, 16, 18, 289, 455, 457; by 


INDEX ΜΠ. 


ἅμα δέ, 389; by μέντοι, 217; 
answering to μέν, 129. 

re = ‘too,’ II, 14, 176, 303, 366, 
503 ; in apodosi, 175. 

ré—xai, 13 ff., 99, Io9Q-I10, 164, 
192, 243, 264, 265, 266, 267, 294, 
308, 315, 317, 336, 353, 366, 368, 
408, 442, 455, 458, 472, 489, 509. 

ré—ré, 243, 432, 486. 

τεῖχος, 260. 

τέττιγες, 7. 

τί, 436. 

τί αὐτῶν, 185. 

τοιοῦτος, 173, 179, 439, 441, 459, 518. 

τόπος, 368. 

τότε, 66, 193, 406, 457, 496. 

τότε δή, 294. 

τρίβειν, 434. 

τρόπος, 247, 368. 


- τυγχάνειν, 53. 


τύχη, connected with τὸ θεῖον, 336. 


Y. 
ὑπηρεσία, 83, 359. 
ὑπό, 428, 452 ; in composition, 133, 
431. 
ὑπόλοιπος, 444. 
ὑφαιρεῖν, 175. 
Φ. 
φέρεσθαι, 122. 
φρυκτοὶ πολέμιοι, 140. 
φυγάς, 347. 
φυγή, 408. . 
φυλή and φυλακή, confused in 
MSS., 522. 


xX. 


χειροτέχνης, 382-383. 
χρησμολύγοι, 90, 464. 


¥. 
ψεύδεσθαι, 352. 
Ψιλοῦν, 222. 
Q, 
ὡς εἰπεῖν, 440. 
ὥστε, pleonastic, 31; expressing 
purpose, 108 ; inaccurately used, 
116, 267-268, 459; cp. 291. 


CORRIGENDA. VOL. I. 


Page 65, line 6, for Athenians read Corinthians. 


” 


98, 
103, 
103, 


112, 
113, 
120, 
140, 
160, 
173, 
181, 


15, for Citinium read Cytinium. 
13, for brought in the harvest read brought in corn. 
25, for was read were. 
32, for these treasures read this treasure :—i.e. the gold taken 
from the statue of the Goddess. 
10, for Theopompus read Cleopompus. 
5, marg., dele 29. 
14, for destroyed read plundered. 
16, for the tribute read tribute; so p. 179, 1. 34; Ὁ. 295, 1. 13. 
22, dele had. 
3, for Nericum read Nericus. 
26, for six ascending each of the two towers read six ascending 
the wall and proceeding towards each of the two towers. 


190, note, for vi read iv. 
234, line 4, marg., for Sicilian read Italian. 


241, 
244, 


28, before Peloponnesians insert other. 

5, marg., for between the Acarnanians and Amphilochians 
read of the Acarnanians and Amphilochians with the 
Ambraciots. 


267, note ἢ, for τό τέ read τό re. 
271, line 12, before in the rear insert on the high ground. 


317, 
349, 


11, for Aesymé read Oesyme. 
11, for Brycinniae read Bricinniae. 


343, note », for 20 fin. read 30 fin. 
348, note », for éxdrepg read ἑκατέρᾳ. 
352, line 33, for Diathus read Daithus. 


377. 
438, 


5, for Oenianians read Aenianians. 
34, Marg., insert 41. 


519, note °, for £48,000 read £485,000. 
527, note “, for vi read vii. 
538, line 12, marg., for was read were. 


552, 
567, 
578, 
590, 
607, 


32, Marg., insert 5; p. §33, 1. 19, marg., dele 5. 
26, dele or. 
6, for Iasus read Ialysus. 
19, for came read come. 
35, for crews read crew. 


CORRIGENDA. νοι. II. 


line 4, for ἐυμβολαίαι read ξυμβόλαιαι. 


3, for 112. 2 read 112. 1. 
1, for rpiwoos read τρίποδος. 
34, for χρησμόλογοι read χρησμολόγοι. 
22, for before the énd read after the end. 
31, for ii read iii. 
1, for 8° read al 3°, and for in read ἔτη. 
34. for Dr. Thomson read Dr. Thompson. 
32, for καίρῳ read καιρῷ. 
21, 22, dele support, and transfer ἴαμα ws to succeeding line. 
7, for 423 or 421 ?, read 421. ' 
10, for 32 read 33. 
2, for relate read relates. 
34, for ὅπωσα read ὁπόσα. 
30, for ἀνεχώρηραν read ἀνεχώρησαν. 
16, dele and the hill of Paleokastro. 
13, for has read have. 
33, for Erpvpovos read Στρυμόνος. 
24, after Methoné insert (Methana). 
18, for pexpt read μέχρι. 
25, 431 B.c. Cp. Essay on Inscriptions, p. xl viii. 
2, dele of. 
27, about 437. Cp. Essay on Inscriptions, p. xxxv. 


28—297, 27. But cp. Essay on Inscriptions, pp. xxxvii-xliii. 


1, for most read many. 
19, dele unnecessarily placed by Poppo after προγεγενημένα. 
13, for Appendix read Introduction [p. Ixvi]. 
27, for Μ'Ῥ read M. 

13, 15, for Ἕρμαι, “Epuns, read ‘Eppat, ‘Eppijs. 

9, for ἰσοκινδύνους read ἰσοκινδύνους. 

16, for παραπᾶν read παράπαν. 

13, for have read has. 

24, for κατώθεν read κάτωθεν. 

31, for εἰκοστόλογος read εἰκοστολόγος. 
32, for Euyrelus read Euryelus. 


25, for ἀλλά follows χρέων understood from read with ἀλλά 


supply χρεών from. 
2, dele Appendices to. 
27, for πότε read ποτέ. 
27, for μή read μὴ. 
24, for παντύς, read παντός: 
26, for Monastb. read Monatsb. 
14, for φυλή read φυλήν. 


Aa 


ἊΝ 


The borrower must return this item on or before 
the last date stamped below. If another user 
places a recall for this item, the borrower will 
be notified of the need for an earlier return. 


Non-receipt of overdue notices does not exempt 
the borrower from overdue fines. 


Harvard College Widener Library 
617-495-2413 


Lend IES 


Please handle with care. 
Thank you for helping to preserve 
library collections at Harvard.